Davies v Evan Humphreys
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 361
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 265; 4 Jur 250. Followed, In re Snowdon, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 44. Considered, Wolmershansen v. Gullick, [1893] 2 Ch. 514.
daveem -a. evan humphreys. Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-By a promisory note, E. H, W. D., & J. H., jointly and severally promised to pay to J. E. 300, with interest. W. IX having afterwards paid J. E. 280 on account of the note, J. E. made the following indorsement upon it:-" Received of W. 1). the sum of .280, on account of the within note, the 300 having been originally advanced to E. H." In an actioti brought by W. D., who had paid the whole amount due, against J. H., to recover contribution from him "as a co-surety:"-Held, that the indorsement was admissible in evidence, to prove not only the payment of the 280, but also that the money was originally advanced to E. H. as principal.-The amount of principal and interest was paid by the plaintiff more than six years before the commencement of the suit, with the exception of 30, which was paid by him within that period. The Statute of Limitations having been pleaded: -Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only to the extent of 30 which had been paid within the six years, and that the Statute of Limitations was a bar to the rest, as the right of action attached as soon as the, plaintiff had paid more than his proportion.-Held, also, in an action on the same note against E. H., the principal, that the Statute of Limitations was a bar to all except 30, as the plaintiff had a right of action against the principal the moment he paid anything, for so much money paid to his use. [S. G. 9 L. J. Ex. 265 ; 4 Jur 2nO. Followed, In re Sitouidoit, 1881, 17 Oh. D. 44. '. Cqnsidered, IPdmersfumsen v. G-ullkk, [1893] 2 Ch. 5U.] Indebitatua assumpsit for money paid, and on an account stated. Pleas, 1st, non asaumpsic; 2nd, ^he Statute of Limitations. At; the trial before Coleridge, J., at the Carmarthenshire Spring Assizes, 1839, the following appeared to be the circumstances upon whicli the action was founded :- Shortly before the making of the promissory note hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, about the month of November, 1827, the daughter of the plaintiff married the defendant, who was the son of one John Humphreys, the defendant in the action next Ex. Div. vi[.-12* 862 DAVIES V. HUMPHREYS 6M. &W.1M. mentioned, and which John Humphreys was then the tenant and lessee of a farm Called Coed, in the same county. The plaintiff gave his daughter on her marriage lEIOQ and :some household furniture, and John Humphreys, on the same occasion, gave up to the defendant, hia son, the lease of Coed, together with the stock and implements, (which were valued at 1150), on the understanding that the defendant should pay him for [164] the same the sum of 800, (being 350 less than the actual pvalue), ia the following manner : viz., by paying down the sum of 400, and giving his undertaking for the other 400. .The defendant handed over to his father the ;100 which he received with his wife, and they both (Evan and John Humphreys) applied to the plaintiff to make up the other 300, which were to be paid clown as above mentioned. This the plaintiff declined doing; but agreed, that on the lease of Coed being deposited with him as a security, and on their procuring the money from a relative of theirs, one John Evans of Altycadno, he would join with them as their sarety in a promissory note for the amount. On the 27th of December next after the marriage, the plaintiff, the defendant, and John Humphreys met, when one Thomas Jones, an attorney, being sent for, he drew up a promissory note, which was signed by thenij and witnessed by him; but he died before the trial. The following is a copy of the note and indorsements :- "300." : "On demand we do hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to Mr. John Evans, of Altycadno, or order, the sum of three hundred pounds, with lawful interest for the same. Value received. As witness our hands this 27th day of December, 1827." (Signed) " evan humphreys, of Coed, Llandifilog. " Witness, Thomas Jones, " W. davies, Mamaurge. " Attorney, Caermarthen. " john humphreys." Indorsed. " The principal money or sum of three hundred pounds is not to be called in, or recovered, or paid up, unless six months' previous notice is given of the intention of so doing in writing. "Eeceived one year's interest, paid to the 27th of December, 1829." [155] "1831, December 31.-Received of Mr. William Davies the sum of two hundred and eighty pounds, on account of the within note, the 300 having been originally advanced to Mr. Evan Humphreys. " john evans. "Witness, Thomas Jones." "Jane 5, 1832.-Received on account of this note 20. "john evans." "Received llth of July, 1832, of Mr. William Davies, 81. 10s. on account of note and interest, which I hold of him. " john evans." "Received also, this 2&th of August, 1832, 101. 10s. " Altycadno. " john evans." "January 12th, 1833.-Received this day of Mr. William Davies, the sum of 11, which, with the sum of before paid by bim to me, is the balance of principal and interest on this note. " john evans. "Witness, Lewis Morris, Attorney, Caermarthen." nq evidence was given of the payee's applying to the defendant or to John Humphreys for payment, but it was proved that he applied to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff made the payments, the receipts for which were indorsed on the p.ote, on the- respective days stated in those receipts. It also appeared that those receipts respeettvjely were signed by the payee, and that he died before the trial. Ths Amount of principal and interest due on the note was paid by the plaintiff more than six years before the eommeiicement of the suit, with the exception of 30, which was made within that period. Two grounds of defence were relied upon at the trial:-1st, that the respective 8 M. &W. 156, DAVIE8 V. HUMPHREYS 363 payments were made by the plaintiff as a gift to his son-in-law, and not aa a loan ; and, [156j2ndly, that the Statute of Limitations was a bar to all except the 30. The learned Judge left it to the jury to say whether the transaction was a gift or a loan; and told them that, in his opinion, the statute barred all but the sum paid within the six years; but should they be of opinion that it was a loan, he would reserve leave to the plaintiff to move to increase the damages from 30 to 300, in ease this Court should be of opinion that he was wrong in point of law. The jury found for the plaintiff', damages 30. In Easter Term, 1839, Chilton obtained a rule pursuant to the leave reserved. In the action by the same plaintiff agahist John Humphreys, which was also an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money paid, and on an account stated, the pleas were the same as in the other action, viz. non assumpsit, and the Statute of Limitations. In this action, however, the plaintiff, by his particulars of demand, stated that he brought hia action to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George Wimpey & Company Ltd v B.O.A.C.
...is the right of one surety to contribution from a cosurety. His right at low did not accrue until he had paid more than his share; ( Davies v. Humphreys, which is reported in 6 Meeson and Welsby Reports at pages 168 to 169); but his right in equity (which now prevails) arises when his liabi......
- Amadio Pty Ltd and Another v Russell Fraser Henderson and Others
-
Burke v Lfot Pty Ltd
...at 1185]. 25 (1969) 121 CLR 342 at 351. 26 (1969) 121 CLR 342 at 351 per Kitto J, citing Davies v Humphreys (1840) 6 M & W 153 at 168–169 [ 151 ER 361 at 27 Adelights had the same shareholders and directors as Barbara's Storehouse. 28 Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (1998) ATPR ¶41–658. 29 Ha......
-
Leisureking Ltd v Cushing (Inspector of Taxes)
... ... Davies v Humphreys ENRENR (1840) 6 M & W 153; 151 ER 361 ... Kirkness (HMIT) v John Hudson & Co Ltd ELR ... ...