Hyde and Another v Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1836 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 299
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 3 Scott, 289; 2 Hodges, 94; 5 L. J. C. P. 291. Discussed, Williams v. Mason, 1873, 28 L. T. 233. Referred to, R. v. Kent JJ., 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 307. Discussed, Swift v. Winterbotham, 1874-73, L. R. 8 Q. B. 248; L. R. 9 Q. B. 312, In re Whitley, 1886, 32 Ch. D. 339.
hyde and another v. johnson, May 9, 1836. [S. C. 3 Scott, 289; 2 Hodges, 94; 5 L. J. G. P. 291. Discussed, Williams v. Mason, 1873, 28 L. T. 233. Eeferred to, B. v. Kent JJ., 1873, L. B. 8 Q. B. 307. Discussed, Swift v. Winterlotham, 1873-74, L. E. 8 Q. B. 248; L. E. 9 Q. B. 312. In re Whiiley, 1886, 32 Ch. D. 339.] 4tft*i^i-ac^-jr. Under 9 G. 4, c. 14, s., 1, an acknowledgment signed by the agent of the debtor, will not retrieve a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations : it must be signed by the debtor himself. In this action the Plaintiff in order to recover a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations, offered in evidence at the trial before the under-sheriff, a letter written by the Defendant's wife, in her husband's name, at his request, offering to pay the debt by instalments, and sent by him to the Plaintiff. The evidence was objected to as not signed "by the party chargeable thereby," within the meaning of-9 G. 4, e. 14, s. 1; but the under-sheriff received it, and a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff with leave for the Defendant to move to set it aside, and enter a nonsuit instead, if the Court should be of opinion that the letter ought not to have been received. Accordingly, Chilton having obtained a rule nisi to that effect, Byles shewed cause. It is true the statute requires the acknowledgment to be signed by the party chargeable thereby, and, except in sect. 7 where it recites the statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, does not employ the word [777] agent: but a man's agent is as much implied in the mention of himself, as his executor or administrator; and great inconvenience would ensue, if a party were not allowed in all cases to bind himself by the recognised acts of his agent. According to that construction of the statute, a party unable to write would never be capable of making a binding acknowledgment of a debt. In WTiippy v. Hilary (3 B. & Adol. 399) it was held, that the Statute of Limitations was not barred by a letter in which the Defendant stated, "-that family arrangements had been making to enable him to discharge the debt; that funds had been appointed for that purpose, of which A. was trustee; and that Defendant had handed the Plaintiff's account to A.; that some time must elapse before payment, but that Defendant was authorised by A. to refer the Plaintiff to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...p. 64, note (c), the requisite written promise or acknowledgment must be signed by the debtor. Signature by an agent is not sufficient 2 Bing. N. C. 776, Hyde v. Johnson. 3 Scott, 289, S. C. 5 C. & P. 211, Gibson v. Baghott. Secus, as to the stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, a. 40. 9 Sim. 219, Lord ......
- Stage Club Ltd v Millers Hotels Pty Ltd
-
General Legal Council ex parte Whitter v Frankson
...it would simply make it more difficult for him to invoke the statutory procedure. 6 The exceptional nature of a case like Hyde v Johnson 2 Bing NC 776 was emphasised by the Court of Appeal in In re Whitley Partners Ltd (1886) 32 Ch D 337, in which a contributory in an insolvent company appl......
-
Murtagh v Crawford
...& W. 531. Waters v. TomkinsENR 3 Cr. M. & R. 722. Wough v. CopeENR 6 M. & W. 824. Ashby v. JamesENR 11 M. & W. 542. HYde v. JohnstonENR 2 Bing. N. C. 776. Moore v. StrongENR 1 Bing. N. C. 441. Bewley v. Power Hay. & Jo. 368. Bateman v. Pinder 3 Q. B. 574. Willis v. NewhamENR 2 Y. & J. 518. ......