In an action upon a simple contract, an acknowledgement, or promise, by words only is not sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations or to deprive a party of the benefit thereof unless the acknowledgement, or promise, is in writing, signed by the party chargeable thereby. This section does not alter or take away, or lessen the effect of a payment of principal or interest made by any person. In actions against two or more joint contractors, or executors, or administrators, if it appears at the trial, or otherwise, that the plaintiff, though barred by the statute of limitations as to one or more of the defendants, is nevertheless entitled to recover against any other defendant by virtue of a new acknowledgment, or promise, or otherwise, judgment may be given for the plaintiff as to that defendant. An indorsement or memorandum of a payment written or made upon a promissory note, bill of exchange, or other writing, by or on behalf of the party to whom the payment is to be made, is not sufficient proof of the payment so as to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations.
(Aug. 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 677, Pub. L. 88-509, § 1; Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-255, § 27(i), 44 DCR 1271.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
1981 Ed., § 28-3504.
1973 Ed., § 28-3504.
Legislative History of Laws
Law 11-255, the “Second Technical Amendments Act of 1996,” was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 11-905, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on November 7, 1996, and December 3, 1996, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on December 24, 1996, it was assigned Act No. 11-519 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 11-255 became effective on April 9, 1997.