In re Gilman, Son Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Miwon, U.S.A., Inc. v. Crawford

    629 F. Supp. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    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."

  2. Nagle v. Herold

    30 F. Supp. 905 (W.D.N.Y. 1939)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  3. Salomon v. Graphic Communications Corp. (In re IMFC Financial Corp.)

    11 B.R. 874 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981)   Cited 4 times
    Involving a bankruptcy trustee's challenge to the debtor's authority to enter into a pre-petition transaction to invalidate the debtor's pre-petition transaction

    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.

  4. BECK v. DUTCHMAN COALITION MINES CO

    2 Utah 2 (Utah 1954)   Cited 7 times

    " 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."

  5. Investment Secur. Co. v. Bunten

    103 P.2d 414 (Wyo. 1940)   Cited 4 times

    ' 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.

  6. SALT LAKE TRANSFER CO. v. SHURTLIFF ET AL

    83 Utah 488 (Utah 1934)   Cited 5 times
    In Salt Lake Transfer Co. v. Shurtliff, 83 Utah 488, 489, 30 P.2d 733, 736, Mr. Justice Folland, speaking for this court, noted that later Kansas cases announce the rule that "nothing short of a distinct, direct, unqualified, and intentional admission of a present, subsisting debt on which a party is liable will be sufficient to take the obligation out of the statute and start it running anew.

    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?

  7. Gizzi v. Gizzi

    72 N.Y.S.3d 516 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    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.

  8. Gizzi v. Gizzi

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51531 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  9. Goldrick v. Goldrick

    99 Misc. 2d 749 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979)   Cited 13 times
    Applying the rule but noting that "the statute excepts an action to recover real property such as the instant constructive trust action from the rehabilitative effects of this statute. . . . [because] the public policy of this state is to put to rest clouds on title, thereby facilitating their free transfer."

    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.

  10. Matter of Alton

    55 Misc. 2d 985 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    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.