Hart v Prendergast
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1845 |
| Date | 20 November 1845 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 674
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 15 L. J. Ex. 223. Explained, Sidwell v. Mason, 1857, 2 H. & N. 306. Referred to, Chasemore v. Turner, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 519; Mowbray v. Appleby, 1899, 80 L. T. 805.
hart w. prendergast. Nov. 20, 1845.-The following letter, written by the defendant to a clerk of the plaintiff, in answer to an application for payment of the debt-Held not sufficient to defeat a plea of the Statute of Limitations :-" [ will not fail to meet Mr. H. (the plaintiff) on fair terms, and have now a hope that before perhaps a week from this date I shall have it in my power to pay him, at all events, a portion of the debt, when we shall settle about the liquidation of the balance." [S. C. 15 L J. Ex. 223. Explained, 8-ulwell v. Masmi, 1857, 2 H. & N. 300. Referred to, Chasemare v. Turner, 1875, I,. R. 10 Q. B. 519; Mowlmy v. Apjdelry, 1899, 80 L. T. 805.] JDebt for goods sold and delivered. Pleas, iiuiiquam indebitatus, and the Statute of Limitations. At the trial, before Pollock, C. B., at the Middlesex sittings after Trinity Term, it appeared that the debt was contracted above six years before action bropght, while the defendant was a clerk in the Excise Office. In order to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following letter, written by the defendant in answer to an application by a clerk of the plaintiff for payment of the debt:- "Jan. 8, 1841. " Sir,-Having no longer any connexion with the Excise, I only this clay received your obliging note of the 6th instant, which will account for any apparent remiss-ness on my part, in not either calling on you or earlier replying. I assure you I will) not fail to meet Mr. Hart on fair terms, and have now a hope that before perhaps a week from this date I shall have it in my power to pay him, at all events, a portion of the debt, when we shall settle about the liquidation of the balance/' Jt was contended for the defendant, that this was not a sufficient acknowledgment to satisfy Lord Tenterden's Act, 9 Geo. 4, c. 14. The Lord Chief Baron reserved the point for the opinion of the Court, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, the defendant having [742] leave to move to enter a verdict for him on the second issue. On a former day in this term, Lush obtained a rule nisi accordingly; against which Hugh Hill now shewed cause. It is now fully established that the construction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moodie v Bannister
...G. M. & G. 12). , 4 DBEWKY, 439. HOODIE U BANNISTEB 169 Mr. Speed, for the executrixes,, in the same interest, cited Hart k .Prendergast 14 M. & W. 741); Kennett v. Millbank (8 Bing.. 38); Linsdl v. 5omor (2 Bing, N. C. 241); Batchelor v. Middleton (6 Hare, 82); King v. Knight (4 T. R. 419)......
-
Fuller v Redman
...Howc.utt v. 7 oM-[617]-sr (3 Exch. Rep. 491); William* v. Griffith (Ibid. 335); A'Court v. Cross (3 Bing. 329); Hart v. Prenderga.it (14 Mees. & W. 741); Hoodie v. Bannister (4 Drew. 432); Everett v. Robinson. (4 Jur. (N. S.) 1083); 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, s. 3; 9 Geo. 4, c. 14; 3 & 4 Will. 4, o.......
-
Banner v Berridge
...Francis v. Hawksley, 33 L. T. Bop. 182; 1 El. & EL 1052; Routledge v. Ramsay, 2 Ad. & El. 221; Hart v. Prendergast, 6 L. T. Rep. 173; 14 M. & W. .741; Spong v. Wright, 9 M. & V. 741; Williams v. Griffiths. 3 Ex. 335. Interest in advance is expressly stipulated for by the terms of the contra......
-
Edmonds v Goater
...Geo. 4, c. 14; Tanner v. Smart (6 B. & C. 603); Mmrell v. Frith (3 M. & W. 402); tipmg v. WrigU (9 M. & W. 629); Hart v. Prendergast (14 M. & W. 741); Rmttledge v. Ramsay (8 A. & E. 221); Cawley v. Furnell (20 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 197); Gardner v. M'Mahon (3 Q. B. 561). Mr. Roupell and Mr. S......