Coppin v Gray
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1842 |
| Date | 14 January 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 62 E.R. 856
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 105.
[205] coffin v. gray. Jem. 13, 14, 1842. [S. C. II L. J. Ch. 105.] In order to prevent the operation of the Statute of Limitations in a Court of Equity in a matter of simple contract, it is sufficient if the bill be filed within six years after the accruer of the right to sue, although the swbpasna be not sued out till after the expiration of that period. Quaere, whether the Statute of Limitations can be pleaded in bar of a bill filed to enforce payment out of the separate estate of a married woman of a bill of exchange given by her in her separate capacity 1 The bill was filed by the personal representatives of John Plura against John Gray and Sarah his wife, and the trustees of their marriage settlement, praying payment out of Mrs. Gray's separate estate of three sums of 500, 500 and 250. The bill alleged that Mrs. Gray, on the faith of her separate estate, had contracted to purchase of the Welch Iron Company a leasehold house and premises called Hartsheath, at 1700, and for that purpose had borrowed of Plura the three sums in question, for one of which, namely, 500, Plura had originally given his acceptance, which he afterwards paid, to a bill of exchange drawn upon him by Mrs. Gray, at three months, dated November 13th 1827, and made payable to the trustees of her settlement. The Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Gray, by their answers, denied the existence of any such contract as in the bill mentioned, but admitted that the advances in question had been made by Plura to Mr. Gray as his sole debtor; Mrs. Gray agreeing to advance to her husband out of her separate estate the sums required to repay Plura, upon condition that such estate should be indemnified by means of a security upon Hartsheath. They further alleged that it was upon the expectation of such security being given that Mrs. Gray signed the bill of exchange. They relied on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the relief sought by the bill. At the hearing of the cause the Plaintiffs proved the bill of exchange. One of their witnesses, however, stated that it was paid by Plura on the 15th of January 1828, which was one month before it became due. As to th other sums, the Plaintiffs failed in proving the allegations of their bill. The bill was filed on the 12th February 1834, when a [206] subpcenawas taken (1) In Crowder v. Foster and Nash v. Parfttt, 21st February 1842, His Honour adopted a similar course; observing, however, that it might not be advisable to adhere to this practice in every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DREW v LORD NORBURY. [Chancery.]
...caseUNK 6 Rep. 72. Buckle v. Mitchell 18 Ves. 100. AnonymousENR 1 Vern. 318. Humble v. ShoreENR 3 Hare, 119. Coppin v. GrayENR 1 Y. & C. C. C. 205; see p. 208. Boyd v. HigginsonUNK 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 97. Pigott v. Nower 3 Swanst. 334, n. Walker v. Flamstead 2 ld. Kenyon's Rep. 57. Metcalf v. Pu......
-
Sayer v Wagstaff
...of Limitations, proceedings were said to have commenced upon filing the bill, and not upon service of the subpana. Coppin v. Gray (1 Y. & C. (C. C.) 205). [THE master of the rolls. There are four periods at which it may be argued that the application was made ; first, the time of presenting......
-
Hamilton v Hamilton
...HAMILTON and HAMILTON. Philippo v. Munnings 2 M. & Cr. 309. Dimsdale v. DudingENR 1 Y. & C., C. C. 205. Davis v. MorierENR 2 coll. 303. Cholmondely v. ClintonENR 2 Mer. 362. Wedderburn v. Wedderburn 4 m. & C. 41. Ryder v. Bickerton 3 Swanst. 81, n. Raby v. Ridehalgh 7 De G., M'N. & G. 104. ......
-
Vaughan v Walker
...Appeal. VAUGHAN and WALKER. Norton v. TurvilleENR 2 P. Wms. 144. Coppin v. GrayENR 1 Y. & C., C. C., 205. Bolden v. Nicholay 3 Jur., N. S., 884. Aylett v. Ashton 1 M. & Cr. 112. Vaughan v. VanderstegenENR 2 Drew. 165, 179, 183. Hovenden v. Annesley 2 Sch. & Lef. 632, 633. Fergus v. Gore 1 S......