Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title V Chapter 260
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 13 (2026)

Acknowledgment or new promise; effect

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 13. No acknowledgment or promise shall be evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take an action of contract out of the operation of this chapter or to deprive a party of the benefit thereof, unless such acknowledgment or promise has been made by, or is contained in, a writing signed by the party chargeable thereby.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1925–2013 · leading case: Palandjian v. Pahlavi, 614 F. Supp. 1569 (D. Mass. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Palandjian v. Pahlavi, 614 F. Supp. 1569 (D. Mass. 1985). “For these reasons, the court rules that, upon this record, the statute of frauds does not bar Palandjian’s contract claim.”
Young v. Reed, 371 N.E.2d 1378 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). · cites it 2× “On this analysis, G. L. c. 260, § 13, relied upon by the defendants, is immaterial.”
Epstein v. Seigel, 485 N.E.2d 947 (Mass. 1985). “Most actions of contract must be commenced within six years “next after the cause of action accrues.” G. L. c. 260, § 2 (1984 ed.). This is an action of contract within the scope of the six-year statute.”
Westminster Nat'l Bank v. Graustein, 170 N.E. 621 (Mass. 1930). “The trial judge ruled that the agreement of December 21, 1916, was a sufficient acknowledgment in writing by the defendant to satisfy the statute of limitations and that the amount then due was $7,500.”
Nat'l Shawmut Bank v. Fitzpatrick, 152 N.E. 328 (Mass. 1926). “197, § 9, relating to the limitation of time within which an action can be maintained against them, or whether on the allegations of the bill this court under § 10, notwithstanding the statute, should decree relief in equity where a creditor who has not prosecuted his claim…”
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 267 Mass. 607 (1929). “c. 107, § 23, cl. 1; bills of lading, G.”
P.J. Keating Co. v. Roads Corp., 24 Mass. L. Rptr. 212 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2008). “G.L.c. 260, §13. With respect to the purported e-mail reaffirmation serving as the required writing, “the written acknowledgment or promise must be an unqualified acknowledgment of the debt .”
Epstein v. Seigel, 1985 Mass. App. Div. 113 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1985). · cites it 3× “1 The plaintiffs right to recover herein thus depends upon whether the defendant’s letter constituted a revival of the defendant’s debt within the purview of G.L. c. 260, § 13. 2 It is elementary lawthat in order to bring a case within the provisions of G.”
Gilmour v. Johnson, 150 N.E. 87 (Mass. 1926). “The sealed instrument, upon which the second count of the declaration is founded, contains no direct promise to pay the debt which the assignment of the mortgage was intended to secure.”
Equi v. Licari, 1985 Mass. App. Div. 181 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1985). · cites it 2× “Pursant to G.L.c. 260, §13, evidence must be advanced of an acknowledgement or new promise to pay a debt “made by, or contained in, a writing signed by the party chargable thereby” in order to overcome the statutory time bar to the commencement of suit.”
George v. Synkinetics, Inc., 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 64 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2013). “See G.L.c. 260, §13; Epstein v. Siegel, 396 Mass.”
Brigham v. Garcelon, 254 Mass. 65 (1925). “Upon the facts in evidence the special statute of limitations did not override or abridge the general statute of limitations. Eddy v. Adams, 145 Mass. 489 . Converse v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.