Cockrill v Sparkes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1863 |
| Date | 29 January 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 1065
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. Ex. 118, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 307; 11 W R. 428, 7 L T. 752 Distinguished, In re Powers, Lindsell v Phillip, 1885, 30 Ch. D 291 Referred to, Re Wolmershausen, 1893, 62 L T 544. Questioned, Read v Price, [1909] 1 K B. 589
[699] cocerill v. sparkes. Jan. 29, 1863.-In 1853 H., as principal, and the defendant as surety, gave to the plaintiff then joint and several promissory note for payment of 2001. on demand. In 1861 H. assigned all his property for the benefit of his creditors, and the defendant signed and gave to the plaintiff the following letter:-"I hereby consent to your receiving the dividend under H 's assignment, and do agree that your so doing shall not prejudice your claim upon me for the same debt." The plaintiff accordingly received the dividend, and in 1862 sued the defendant for the balance of the promissory note-Held first, that the letter was not an acknowledgment of the debt, so as to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations -Secondly, that the letter, coupled with the payment, did not render it moie than "only payment" by a co-debtor, so as to take the case out of the 14th section of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856. [S. C. 32 L. J. Ex. 118, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 307; 11 W R. 428, 7 L T. 752 Distinguished, In le Powers,, LnuLeli v Phillip, 1885, JO Ch. D 291 Refeired to, Re rrolmerxheeusen, 1893, 62 L T 544. Questioned, Rtad v Pi ice, [1909] 1 K B. 589] Declaration on a promissory note dated the 9th of November, 1853, whereby the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff, on demand, 2001, with interest at 51. per cent. Plea (inter alia), the Statute of Limitations Issue thereon. At the trial, before Martin, B., at the Middlesex Sittings, after last Trinity Teim, it appeared that on the 9th of November, 1863, the defendant signed the promissory note (which was a joint and several note), as surety for one Henry Hilder, who laceived the proceeds. In the year 1861 Hilder was in pecuniary difficulties, and assigned all his property for the benefit of his creditors. In April of that year, the plaintiff requested the defendant to sign a document, which he stated was necessary to enable him to receive certain dividends under Hilder's assignment, and the defendant accordingly signed the following document:- "Mr. Charles Cocknll "Sir,-I hereby consent to your receiving the dividend under Mr. Henry Hilder's assignment, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Burrows and John Burrows v Mary Catherine Baker
...424. Prance v. SympsonENR 1 Kay. 678. Swann v. SowellENR 2 B. & Ald. 759. Hart v. PrendergastENR 14 M. & W. 741. Cockrill v. SparkesENR 1 H. & C. 699. Buckmaster v. RussellENR 10 C. B. N. S. 745. Statute of Limitations — Written Acknowledgment. 596 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. THOMAS BURROWS A......