Bryan against Horseman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1804 |
| Date | 13 February 1804 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 960
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Disapproved, Mucklow v. St. George, 1812, 4 Taunt, 614.
beyan against horseman. Monday, Feb. 13th, 1804. An acknowledgment of the debt, though accompanied with a declaration by the defendant "that he did not consider himself as owing the plaintiff a farthing, it being more than six years since he contracted," is sufficient to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations. [Disapproved, Mucklow v. St. George, 18,12, 4 Taunt. 614.] In assumpsit for wheat sold and delivered, the defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, and the Statute of Limitations. And at the trial before Lord Efienborough C.J. at the sittings after last term, the plaintiff, in order to take the ease out of the statute, called the sheriff's officer, who proved that the defendant, on being arrested, said, 4EAST, 600. BRYAN ò!?. HORSEMAN 961 " I do not consider myself as owing Mr. Bryan a farthing, it being more than six years since I contracted.. I have had the wheat, I acknowledge, and I have paid some part of it,, and 261, remains due." On the part of the defendant it was objected, that these expressions amounted to no more than what he had stated upon record in his plea, which confessed the existence of the debt, but avoided it by alleging the lapse of time. His Lordship, however, thought that according to the authorities such an acknowledgment of the existence of the debt must be deemed sufficient to take the case out of the statute, though if the matter had been res integra the point might have admitted of doubt: and accordingly, by his direction, a verdict passed for the plaintiff. [600] Bosanquet on a former day moved to set aside the verdict and have a new triaj. The words of the statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, s. 3, are express that all actions on the case, &c. "shall be commenced and sued within six years next after the cause of such actions or suits, and not after." And in every form of action but that of assumpsit the construction has been in unison with the words and policy of the law. In assumpsit, however, any acknowledgment of the debt within six years as then existing has been holden to take the case out of the statute: which has arisen out of the nature of the action; considering such acknowledgment as evidence of a new promise made on the meritorious .consideration of the antecedent debt, and therefore giving a new cause of action distinct from the original consideration. The issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moodie v Bannister
...was required merely for the purpose of rebutting the presumption of payment: Clark v. Haugham (2 B. & C. 154); Bryan v. Horseman (4 East, 599); Baillie v. Lord Inchiquin (1 Esp. 435); Lloyd v. Mawnd (2 T. E. 760). 2. The old law was altered by the decision in Tanner v. Smart (6 B. & C. 603)......
-
Tanner against Smart
...new trial ought to be discharged. I refer to the cases of Yea v. Fouraker (2 Burr. 1099), Lloyd v. Mawnd (2 T. R. 760), Bryan v. Horseman (4 East, 599), Leaper v. Tatton (16 East, 420), Dowthwaite v. Tibbutt (5 M. & S. 75), Frost v. Bengough (1 Bing. 266), Rowcrofi v. Lomas (4 M. & S. 457),......
-
A'Court v Cross
...that the acknowledgment of the debt made by the Defendant had taken the case out of the [330] statute of limitations. Bryan v. Horseman (4 East, 599), Swan v. Sowell (2 B. & A. 759), Mountstephen v. Brooke (3 B. & A. 141), Rowcroft v. Lomas (4 M. & S. 457), Leaper v. Tatton (16 East, 420). ......
-
Scales v Jacob
...v. Cross (3 Bingh. 329), and rests on a series of cases, Yea v. Fourakin (2 Burr. 1099), Trueman v. Fenian (Cowp. 544), Brian v. Horseman (4 East, 599), which have no foundation on the statute, or the earlier decisions, where, as in Hyleing v. Hastings, an acknowledgment of the debt was, at......