Ashby v James
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1843 |
| Date | 11 May 1843 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 920
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 295. Referred to, Brenan v. Crawley, 1868, 16 W. R. 754.
[542] ARHBYfl. james. Exch. of Pleas. May 11, 1843.-Where A. has an account t, 4it. against B, some of the items of which are more than six years old, and B. has a cross account against A., and they meet and go through both accounts, and a balance is struck in A.'s favour, this amounts to an agreement to set off B.'s claim against the earlier items of A.'s, out of which arises a new consideration for the 11 M. &W. 843. ASHBY V. JAMES (J2 L payment of the balance; and takes the case out of the operation of the Statute of Limitations. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 295. Referred to, Brenun v. C'rawley, 1868, 10 W. K. 754.]! Debt for goods sold and delivered, and upon an account stilted. Pleas, first, iiuuquam indebitatus : secondly, the Statute of Limitations. At the trial, before the under-sheriff of Northamptonshire, it appeared that the greater part of the plaintiff's demand accrued more than six years before the commencement of the action, and that there were mutual accounts between the parties. The plaintiff tendered evidence, that, a short time before the action, he and the defendant met for the purpose of adjusting the accounts between them ; that, on the plaintiff's demand being read over, the defendant said it was correct, but that he claimed a set-off; that his set-off was also investigated, and that, finally, a balance was struck in favour of the plaintiff of 121. 9s. 6d. This evidence was objected to on the part of the defendant, on the ground that it amounted to a mere parol acknowledgment by him of the debt, which, by the express provisions of the 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, was not sufficient to take the case out of the statute. The under-sheriff, however, received the evidence, and the plaintiff had a verdict for 121. 9s. (id. Humfrey having obtained a rule for a new trial, on the ground that this evidence was improperly received, Barstow now shewed cause. The evidence was rightly received. Here there was not merely a promise to pay the pre-existing debt, but an act done between the parties, out of which a new consideration arose, namely a settlement of accounts, and the striking of a balance as to items within as well as beyond the six years, which was sufficient to take the case out of the operation of Lord Tenterden's act. [543] Humfrey, contra. No mere verbal statement of accounts is now sufficient to take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stage Club Ltd v Millers Hotels Pty Ltd
-
Re Greene's Estate
...24 Beav. 448. Wheeler v. HowellENR 3 K. & J. 198. Eyles v. EllisENR 4 Bing. 112. Amos v. SmithENR 1 H. & C. 238. Ashby v. JamesENR 11 M. & W. 542. Staley v. Barrett 26 L. J. Ch. 321. Harlock v. Ashberry 19 Ch. Div. 539. Becher v. Delacour 11 L. R. Div. 187. Smith v. Hill 9 Ch. Div. 143. Goi......
-
Murtagh v Crawford
...& Jer. 518. Maghee v. O'NeillENR 7 M. & W. 531. Waters v. TomkinsENR 3 Cr. M. & R. 722. Wough v. CopeENR 6 M. & W. 824. Ashby v. JamesENR 11 M. & W. 542. HYde v. JohnstonENR 2 Bing. N. C. 776. Moore v. StrongENR 1 Bing. N. C. 441. Bewley v. Power Hay. & Jo. 368. Bateman v. Pinder 3 Q. B. 57......
-
Worthington, Administrator, Company of Ann Duncalf v Grimsditch
...evidence of a mutual arrangement having existed at that time for the defendant to make such payments out of the interest; Ashby v. James (11 M. & W. 542). The defendant continued to make those payments regularly from that time until 1842; that is evidence that the arrangement continued unti......