Eavestaff v Russell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1842 |
| Date | 22 June 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 511
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 176.
[365] eavestaff v. russell. Exch. of Pleas. June 22, 1842.-A plea, that the said several supposed causes of action in the declaration mentioned did not accrue to the plaintiff within six years next before the commencement of the suit, is good. [S. C. 12L. J. Ex. 176.] Debt for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. Plea, that the said several supposed causes of action in the declaration mentioned did not accrue to the plaintiff within six years next before the commencement of the suit. Special demurrer, on the ground that the plea, although it professed to be pleaded in confession and avoidance, did not contain any sufficient confession that the plaintiff ever had any cause of action. Joinder in demurrer. Peacock, in support of the demurrer. The term " supposed causes of action " does not amount to a sufficient admission that there ever was a cause of action in the plaintiff. Gale v. Capern (I Ad. & E. 102 ; 3 Nev. & M. 863) may perhaps be relied on for the defendant. There a plea of set off stated, that the plaintiff made his promissory note payable to A. C., which was duly indorsed and delivered to the defendant after the death of A. C., by his administrator, and was unpaid. The plaintiff replied, that "the said supposed debt and cause of set-off, upon the said promissory note, did not accrue to the defendant within six years ;" and it was held that the replication admitted, not only the making of the note, but also the indorsement of it to the defendant. But that case is distinguishable, because there the replication expressly referred to the cause of action " upon the promissory note." In Margvtts v. Bays (4 Ad. & Ell. 489; 6 Nev. & Man. 228), a plea that "the said supposed debt iti the declaration mentioned, if any such there be, did not accrue within six: years," was held bad, as not sufficiently confessing and avoiding the debt: and on Gale v. Oapent being cited, Lord Uenman, C. J., said, "That was after trial; but here the form of [366] the plea is specially demurred to, which makes all the difference." [Parke, B. Gould v. Lasbury (1 C. M. & R. 254- 4 Tyr. 863) is an 512 MITCHELL V. CEAGO 10 M. & W. 36T. authority against you. There this Court, after conference with the Court of King's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe, on the Demise of Goody, against Mary Carter
...(i)' Gale, v. Capern, 1 A. & E. 102. After verdict. (fl) 4 A. & E. 489. On special demurrer. See Wise v. Hodsoll, 11 A. & E. 81G. (a)2 10 M. & W. 365. On special demurrer. (i)a Lord Denman C.J., Patteson and Williams Js. K. B. xliv.-48 1506 DOE V. CARTER 9 Q. B 864. and built a cottage on, ......
-
Samuel Frazer v George Blake
...& ell. 489; S. C. 6 N. & M. 228. Gould v. Lasbury 1 Cr. Mees. & Ros. 254. Brenan v. Monahan 4 Ir. Law Rep. 415. Eavestaff v. RussellENR 10 M. & W. 365. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 179 H. T. 1851, Quein's Bench SAMUEL FRAZER v. GEORGE BLA`KR. Jan. 17. Assumrsrr.-The declaration contained two special......