A'Court v Cross
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1825 |
| Date | 28 November 1825 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 540
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 11 Moore, 198; 4 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 79. Approved, Tanner v. Smart, 1827, 6 B. & C. 603.
A'CouRT v. cross (a). Nov. 28, 1825. [S. C. 11 Moore, 198; 4 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 79. Approved, Tanner v. Smart, 1827, 6 B. & C. 603.] Defendant being arrested on a debt more than six years old, said, " I know that I owe the money, but the bill I gave is on a threepenny receipt stamp, and I will never pay it:" Held, not such an acknowledgment as would revive the debt against a plea of the statute of limitations, This was an action of assumpsit to recover the sum of 301.; to which the Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, averring that the cause of action did not accrue within six years. The cause was tried before Gaselee J., at the last Somersetshire assizes, when the Plaintiff, in order to take the case out of the statute, proved that the Defendant said, on being arrested, "I know that I owe the money; but the bill I gave is on a threepenny receipt stamp, and I will never pay it." The learned Judge did not consider this a promise to pay, so as to take the case out of the statute, and directed the Plaintiff to be nonsuited, giving him leave to move to set the nonsuit aside, and enter a verdict for the sum of 301. Wilde Serjt, accordingly obtained a rule nisi to set aside this nonsuit and enter a verdict for the Plaintiff, upon the ground 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). Spankie Serjt., who shewed cause, contended that the effect of the recent cases was almost to throw the statute into desuetude : but even in Bryan v. Horseman the Court intimated, that if the matter had been res integra, their decision might have been the other way: and in the earlier and better authorities, better because they came* nearer to contemporaneous expositions of the statute, it had always been holden (a) The Reporter was furnished with this case by a friend. 3 mho. ssl a'court v. cross 541 that a mere acknowledgment was not sufficient, but that there must be an express promise to take a case out of the statute. Bass v. Smith (12 Vin. Abr. 229), Lacon v. Briggs (3 Atk, 105). In Hyeling v. Hastings (Ld. Raym...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 SCR 6
...[1951] S.C.R. 830; Doe on the demise of Count Duroure v. Jones (1791), 4 T.R. 301, 100 E.R. 1031; A'Court v. Cross (1825), 3 Bing. 329, 130 E.R. 540; Dundee Harbour Trustees v. Dougall (1852), 1 Macq. 317; Deaville v. Boegeman (1984), 48 O.R. (2d) 725; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1820), 2 Jac.......
-
K.M. v. H.M., (1992) 57 O.A.C. 321 (SCC)
...Doe on the demise of Count Duroure v. Jones (1791), 4 T.R. 300; 100 E.R. 1031, refd to. [para. 22]. A'Court v. Cross (1825), 3 Bing. 329; 130 E.R. 540, refd to. [para. Dundee Harbour Trustees v. Dougall (1852), 1 Macq. 317 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23]. Deaville v. Boegeman (1984), 48 O.R.(2d......
-
Rachel Catherine Ellam v George Ellam
...As Best CJ observed nearly 200 years ago, long dormant claims have often more of cruelty than of justice in them: see A'Court v Cross (1825) 3 Bing 329, 332–333. With the passage of time cases become more difficult to try and the evidence which might have enabled the defendant to rebut the ......
-
Lucy v W T Henleys Telegraph Works Company Ltd
...closed an incident which might have led to a claim against him. As Chief Justice Best put it in an old case ( ( (A' Court v. Cross 1825 3 Bing. 332)), "{The Statute of Limitations) is, as I have often heard it called by great Judges, an Act of peace". 31 But as these factors took no account......
-
Statute-barred cohabitant claimants in Barbados
...(2d) 81. Report of the Committee on Limitation of Actions in Cases of Personal Injury , 1962 Cmnd. 1829, para. 17. 10 A'Court v. Cross (1825) 3 Bing. 329, 332-333. 11 This view is not unanimously accepted. The Trades Union Congress in England submitted to the Law Reform Committee that "If .......