Hopkirk v. Bell - 8 U.S. 164 (1807)


U.S. Supreme Court

Hopkirk v. Bell, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 164 164 (1807)

Hopkirk v. Bell

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 164

ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE CIRCUIT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Syllabus

The act of limitations of Virginia is no bar to a British creditor's demand on a promissory note, dated 21 August, 1772, although one of the plaintiffs was in the country after the treaty of peace, viz., in 1784, and remained.

It appeared upon the trial, in addition to the facts stated in the former report of the case, 7 U. S. 7 U.S. 454, that Andrew Johnston, one of the partners of the house, trading under the firm of Alexander Spiers, John Bowman & Company, of whom the plaintiff is the surviving partner, came to this country after the treaty of peace in 1783, viz., in the spring of 1784, and died here in 1785, but that no other partner of the firm has been in this country at any time since the treaty of peace.

Page 541 U. S. 165

The Court ordered it to be certified as their opinion that under all the circumstances stated, the act of limitations of Virginia was not a bar to the plaintiff's demand on the note of 21 August, 1772.



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.