The Compiled Laws Of The State Of Michigan 1897

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1900 edition. Excerpt: ...are suflicient to keep the old claim aiive.----Miner v. Lox-man, 59 / 480. The endorsement of a partial payment upon a promissory note, written by the party sought to be (-'hilY'i-Zed, is competent evidence of such payment, to take the case out oi' the statute.-Chandier_ v. Lawrence. 3 / 261. But not if the payment is accompanied with denials o_i? liability or by circumstances rebutting the implication of a n'?'' Dromise.--Jewitt v. Petit, 4 / nos; Ten Eyck '-Wing. 1 / 40. As to the effect of ti partial payment by One joint debtor lnljojllle 4Dl'0Sen_ce of both.--Mainzinger v. on Y'-1 / 68: ). Payments upon an account are sufiicient to render it an open '3gY'lnli'il'i1l.1t1i;tl account so as to prevgnt the 8' o the statute.--Payne v. Wziiker, by applying upon it be so by the parties.--Krone 38 / 661. A partial. signee upon a debt due from it which shows upon its face that applied as a final claim. will not save the d Sons operation of the statute.-P11 that Clark. 59 / 414. The rule is Sift part payment is but evidence mission of indebtedness. b sion of an indebtedness. t0 t out of the statute. must reasonably leads to the in the debtor intended to renew 91 to pay.--Lester v. 'I'homp_S0"' Sweet v. Ellis, 6'? N. W. 531-(9745) Sac. 18. If there are two or more joint contractors, or joint executors or administrators of any contractor, no one of them shall lose the benefit of the provisions of this chapter, so as to be chargeable by reason only of any payment made by any other or others of them. Atwood v. Gillett. 2 Doug. 206: Sigler v. other.-Rogers v. Anderson, 40 / 290; Plait, 16 / 206; Pennoyer v. David, 8 / 407'. Gates v. Fisk. 45 / 522; Holcomb v. Sloan. Patterson v. Collier. 71 N. W....