Mr. Crawford's deposition statements amount to nothing more than a "hint, reference or discussion of the old debt." In re Gilman, 57 F.2d 294, 296 (S.D.N.Y. 1932). To qualify under § 17-101, the acknowledgment must be one that "leaves no room for doubt."
The rule of construction of Section 59 in New York State is laid down in Manchester et al. v. Braedner, 107 N.Y. 346, 14 N.E. 405, 406, 1 Am.St.Rep. 829, as follows: 'It seems to be the general doctrine that the writing, in order to constitute an acknowledgment, must recognize an existing debt, and that it should contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it.' This rule is reiterated in Re Gilman, Son & Co., D.C., 57 F.2d 294, and Connecticut Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Wead, 172 N.Y. 497, 65 N.E. 261, In Heaton v. Leonard, 69 Hun 423, 23 N.Y.S. 469, a check offered by way of an compromise for less than the amount claimed was held not such an unqualified acknowledgment of the debt as required by law. Shepherd v. Thompson, 122 U.S. 231, 7 S.Ct. 1229, 1231, 30 L.Ed. 1156, held: 'The statute of limitations is to be upheld and enforce, not as resting only on a presumption of payment from lapse of time, but, according to its intent object, as a statute of repose.
The case law has interpreted this section to require that the acknowledgment must clearly recognize the present existence of the claim, and must contain nothing inconsistent with an intention to pay. See Shepherd v. Thompson, 122 U.S. 231, 7 S.Ct. 1229, 30 L.Ed. 1156 (1887); In re Gilman, Son Co., 57 F.2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1932); Bernstein v. Kaplan, 67 A.D.2d 897, 413 N.Y.S.2d 186 (2d Dept. 1979); Goldrick v. Goldrick, 99 Misc.2d 749, 417 N.Y.S.2d 410 (1979). The defendants contend that the 1977 agreement neither acknowledges any debt as between the guarantors and the Participants nor expresses an intention to pay.
" He stated that "The acknowledgment necessary to start the statute [running] anew must be more than a hint, a reference, or a discussion of an old debt; it must amount to a clear recognition of the claim and liability as presently existing. In re Gilman, Son Co. (D.C.), 57 F.2d 294."
' We deem the correct rule to be that in order to constitute an acknowledgment, the writing must recognize an existing debt, and should contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it. Manchester et al. v. Braedner, 107 N.Y. 346, 349, 14 N.E. 405, 1 Am. St. Rep. 829. The document need contain nothing more than `a clear recognition of the claim as one presently existing.' In re Gilman, Son Co. (D.C.) 57 F.2d 294, 296. Under this rule, we find an `acknowledgment' in this letter. The word `it' in the phrase `he must take care of it' must refer to the $10,000 note and to say that the following words, `or it will take all I have,' refer to the collateral only is a strained construction.
The acknowledgment necessary to start the statute anew must be more than a hint, a reference, or a discussion of an old debt; it must amount to a clear recognition of the claim and liability as presently existing. In re Gilman, Son Co. (D.C.) 57 F.2d 294. Testing the letters of appellants by the standards set up in these cases, can it be said that they fill the requirements of an intentional acknowledgment of an existing debt on which these defendants admit they are liable?
The "acknowledgment" to start the statute running anew must be more than a hint, reference or discussion of the old debt and must amount to clear recognition of the claim as presently existing. Matter of Gilman, Son & Co., 57 F.2d 294 (S.D.NY 1932). Extending the statute of limitations is no occasion to resort to subtle or refined distinctions; there must be an express recognition of the debt.
The "acknowledgment" to start the statute running anew must be more than a hint, reference or discussion of the old debt and must amount to clear recognition of the claim as presently existing. Matter of Gilman, Son & Co., 57 F2d 294 (S.D.NY 1932). Extending the statute of limitations is no occasion to resort to subtle or refined distinctions; there must be an express recognition of the debt.
The "acknowledgment" to start the statute running anew must be more than a hint, reference or discussion of the old debt and must amount to clear recognition of the claim as presently existing. (Matter of Gilman, Son Co., 57 F.2d 294.) This is no occasion to resort to subtle or refined distinctions; there must be an express recognition of the debt.
However, an acknowledgment that would be effective to take a case out of the operation of the statute "must be more than a hint, reference, or discussion or an old debt; it must amount to a clear recognition of the claim as one presently existing [citing cases]." ( Matter of Gilman, Son Co., 57 F.2d 294, 296; see, also, Matter of Meyrowitz, 114 N.Y.S.2d 541, affd. 284 App. Div. 801, mot. for lv. to app. den. 284 App. Div. 844.) Examination of the above-quoted assignment indicates that it is legally insufficient to constitute an acknowledgment and revival of the prior unenforcible debt.