Hilliard v Lenard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1829 |
| Date | 23 February 1829 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 1166
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
1166 HILLIARD V. LENARD M. & BGuildhall, Feb. 23, 1829. billiard- v. lenaed. (Evidence of a parol promise will not take a case out of the Statute of Limitations, in a cause tried after Jan. 1, 1829, though at issue before that day ) Assumpsit by the payee against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note, aid aceeptoi of two bills of exchange Pleas, nan assumpsitt and the Statute of Limitations replication to the latter plea, a promise within six years. The evidence was of promises by parol only ; and there were some words of condition attached to them, which it is not necessary to state The action was commenced and came to issue in Michaelmas Term, 1828, and was set down for trial at the Sittings after Michaelmas Term, but was not then called on ; it now came on ior trial, after the stat. 9 G-eo. IV. c. 14, had come into operation. [298] Gurney for the plaintiff contended that the statute did not apply to a case h^e thisj where the cause was at issue before it came into operation ; and that it was never intended to make the result of a pending cause different, as the course of business allowed it to be tried before or after a particular day. F, Pollock, on the other side, relied on the words of the statute , and said that Best C. J., in a similar case in C. P. which stood for trial at the Sittings after Michaelmas Term, had tried it in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v O'Reilly
...Canal Co. v. Fitzsimons 1 Hud. & Bro. 449. Smith v. RaleighENR 3 Camp. 513. Stokes v. CooperENR 3 Camp. 514, n. Hilliard v. LeonardENR M. & M. 297. Towler v. ChattertonENR 6 Bing. 265. Freeman v. MoyesENR 1 Ad. & El. 338. Charrington v. MeatheringhamENR 2 M. & W. 228. Edwards v. LawleyENR 6......
-
Marsh v Higgins and Another
...thereby,"-was held to have a retrospective operation. The same point had already been ruled by Lord Tenterden* in Hilliard v. L&nard (M. & M. 297), and Ansdl v. Ansell (ibid. 299, n.), and by Hullock, R, in Kirkhaugh v. Herbert (Carlisle Spring Assizes, 1829). So, in Freeman v. Moyes (1 Ad.......
-
Hitchcock against way
...confined to future ones. There are several authorities for extending remedial enactments to inchoate transactions; as Billiard v. Lenard (M. & M. 297), Towler v. Chatterton (6 Bing. 258), and KirTchaugh v. Herbert (k), under Lord Tenterden's Act, 9 G. 4, c. 14; Grant v. Kemp (2 Cro. & M. 63......