Please cite to the original publication
In a recent discussion in the Journal as to the effect of a new promise upon the running of the statute of limitations it was not necessary to determine whether a change in the statute affected only the remedy and hence did not run counter to constitutional objections. This vexed problem was presented in Gilbert v. Selleck (1919, Conn.) 106 AtI. 439, where the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors decided that the statute, in the case of a contract obligation, does not destroy the debt but merely takes away the remedy, and that one has no "property" in the bar of the statute, thus distinguishing a debt from realty or chattels where the "property" passes and both "legal title" and "real ownership" become vested by the running of the statute. The Court therefore held that even after the statute had run the legislature might provide an additional period during which suit could be brought upon a contract of indemnity.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Adverse Possession of One’s Own Debt, 29 Yale Law Journal 91 (1919)