John Atkins and William Atkins, Executors of John Atkins, against Henry Tredgold, Robert Tredgold, James Rolfe, and John Knight, Executors of John Tredgold, deceased
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 291
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 D. & R. 200; 1 L. J. K. B. O. S. 228. Applied, Slater v. Lawson, 1830-31, 1 B. & Ad. 397, 893. Explained, Fordham v. Wallis, 1853, 10 Hare, 225. Referred to, In re Wolmerhausen, 1890, 62 L. T. 544. Distinguished, In re Macdonald, [1897] 2 Ch. 184. Referred to, Astbury v. Astbury, [1898] 2 Ch. 118.
[23] john atkins and william atkins, Executors of John Atkins, against henry tredgold, egbert tredgold, james eolfe, and john knight, Executors of John Tredgold, deceased. 1823. A. & B. made a joint and several promissory note. A. died, and ten years after his death B. paid interest upon the note. In an action brought upon the note against the executors of A., it was held that the payment of interest by B. did not take the ease out of the Statnte of Limitations, so as to make A.'s executors, liable. [S. C. 3 D. & E. 200; 1 L. J. K. B. O.'S. 228. Applied, Slater v. Lawson, 1830-31, 1 B. & Ad. 397, 893. Explained, Fordham v. Wallis, 1853,10 Hare, 225. Eeferred to, In re Wolmerhausen, 1890, 62 L. T. 544. Distinguished, In re Macdonald, [1897] 2 Ch. 184. Eeferred to, Astbury v. Astbwy, [1898] 2 Ch. 118.] Declaration in assumpsit upon three promissory notes made by John Tredgold, deceased, and payable on demand to John Atkins, deceased. The first bore date the 17th January, 1806, and was for 3001. The second was for 2001., and bore the same date. The third was for 3001., and bore date the 17th January, 1809. There were counts for interest for money paid, lent and advanced, had and received, and upon an account stated between the two testators. In all these counts the promises were alleged to have been made by John Tredgold, deceased, to John Atkins. Another count stated that John Tredgold, before his decease, was indebted to John Atkins, in his lifetime, for principal and interest upon the several promissory notes mentioned in the former counts, and for money lent and advanced, money had and received, money paid, laid out, and expended, and for money due and owing from Tredgold to John Atkins upon an account stated between them; and that John Tredgold, since deceased, in his lifetime, being so indebted, and the said several sums of money remaining wholly due and unpaid, the said defendants, as executors as aforesaid, after the death of Tredgold, and before the death of Atkins, promised Atkins to pay him the said sums of money, upon request. There was another count upon an account stated between the defendants as executors, and Atkins, and a [24] promise by the defendants as executors to pay the sums then found to be due. The defendants pleaded, as to the first set of counts, that John Tredgold did not promise ; upon which issue was joined. Secondly, to those counts that the cause of action did not accrue (c) See Eowell v. Richards, 11 East, 633. Thornton v. Jones, 2 Marsh, 287. Tempany v. Burnand, 4 Campb. 20. 292 ATKINS V. TREDGOLD 2 B. & C. 25. within six years ; upon which issue was tendered and joined. And as to the promises in the latter set of counts, that the executors did not promise ; upon which issue was joined. And further, as to the promises in those counts, that the defendants did not, within six years, promise; upon which issue was tendered and joined. The defendant Knight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...a surviving joint contractor, made after the death of the testator, will not take the case out of the statute. Thus in Atkins v. Tredgold, 2 B. & C. 23. 3 D. & R. 200, S. C., A. and B. made a joint and several promissory note ; A. died ; and, ten years after his death, B. paid interest upon......
-
Nash v Hodgson
...taken time to consider the question, and having, as he informed me, referred to Holme v. Green (1 Stark. 488), Afkinx v. Tred-yold (2 B. & C. 23), Tippets v. Heane (1 Cr. Mees. & K. 252), Waters v. Tompkins (2 Cr. Mees. & B. 723), Dmvling v. Ford (11 M. & W. 329), Scholey v. Walton (12 M. &......
-
James Goddard and Holland Goddard against Thomas Ingram and William Wartnaby
...where the point waa not adverted to. There was no fraud in either of those two cases. The language of Bayley J. in Atkins v. Tredgold (2 B. & C. 23), is against the liability now contended for. It must be admitted, an the authority of Jackson v. Fairbank (2 H. Bl. 340), and Wood v. Braddick......
-
John Jackson, Administrator & of Olive Jackson, Deceased, against Ralph Woolley and Hannah his Wife
...at the time of the passing of this statute the law was doubtful as to the effect of payment by a co-contractor. But in Atkins v. Tredgold (2 B. & C. 23) it was admitted that the law was then settled. [Lord Campbell C.J. The ratio decidendi of the Vice Chancellor was that the section in ques......