Connecticut Trust and Safe Deposit Company, Appellant v. Charles K. Wead, Respondents

Summary

The Court of Appeals held that a debtor's letter offering to purchase a note for a small sum does not constitute an acknowledgment or promise sufficient to revive a claim barred by the statute of limitations, and that non‑residence, even with casual visits, constitutes continuous absence that suspends the statute under §401. Accordingly, the claims against both Charles K. Wead and Leslie C. Wead were barred and a new trial was ordered.