Holmes v Mackrell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1858 |
| Date | 13 January 1858 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 953
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 186; 4 Jur. N. S, 281.
[789] holmes v. mackrell. Jan. 13th, 1858. The defendant being called upon by a creditor (the holder of two promissory notes for 5101., more than six months overdue,) for a statement of his affairs, made out an account in which the notes were inserted as a debt for which he was liable :- Held, a sufficient acknowledgment within the 9 G. 4, c. 14, s. 8, to take the ease out of the statute of limitations.-Held also, that, the whole document being in the handwriting of the defendant, his name written at the top was a sufficient signature to bind him.-To take a case of the statute of limitations, the following indorsement on the back of a promissory note was offered in evidence,-" This note is renewed by the re-signing of the parties as under, this 7th of March, 1855:"-Qusere, whether it was admissible 1 This was an action against the defendant as one of the makers of two joint and several promissory notes for 2501. and 2601. respectively ; to which the defendant pleaded, amongst other pleas, the statute of limitations. At the trial,.before Cresswell, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was the manager of the Hull Banking Company, and that the defendant had had various pecuniary transactions as well with the bank as with the plaintiff in his personal capacity. The notes in question had originally been given to the bank, but the plaintiff stated that he had subsequently taken them upon himself. The notes were payable on demand : and, in order to take the case out of the statute, the plaintiff in the first instance relied on the following indorsement upon each of them, signed by the defendant and the other parties before the expiration, of six years from their date :-" This note is renewed by the re-signing of the parties as under, this. 7th of March, 1855," On the part of the defendant, it was objected that this indorsement was not admissible, on the ground that it amounted to a promissory note or nothing, and was unstamped: and Jones v. Ryder, 4 M. & W. 32, was relied on, where it was held that a promissory note improperly stamped is not admissible as a memorandum to take the case out of the statute of limitations, under the 9 G. 4, c. 14, s. 8, that section only applying to instruments which might be stamped with an agreement stamp. Two other documents were then put in, for the same purpose. These were accounts which the defendant had furnished at the plaintiff's request, as shewing the [790] state () See the preceding case. , (b) The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Viet. c. 16), the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Viet. c. 18), and the Eailways Clauses Con solidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Viet. c. 20). . 954 HOLMES V. MACKBBLL 3 C. B. (N. S.)791. of his affairs at that time, viz. March, 1855. The first of these mentioned a promissory note for 5101. as outstanding, but it was not signed. The other,-which had no signature at the end, but had " J. Mackrell" at the head of it, and was all in the defendant's handwriting,-had an entry on the debit side of "two notes for 5001." which it was assumed alluded to the two notes declared on. For the defendant, it was insisted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial