John Jackson, Administrator & of Olive Jackson, Deceased, against Ralph Woolley and Hannah his Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1858 |
| Date | 19 January 1858 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 289
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Reversed in Exchequer Chamber, 8 El. Bl. 784; 27 L. J. Q. B. 448; 4 Jur. N. S. 656; 6 W. R. 686. Distinguished, Pardo v. Bingham, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 740. Referred to, Watson v. Woodman, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 731.
john jackson, Administrator &c. of Olive Jackson, Deceased, against ralph woolley and hannah his Wife. Tuesday, January 19th, 1858. A., in an action brought against B. after the passing of The Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Viet. c. 97), in order to bar the operation of the Statute of Limitations (21 Ja. 1, e. 16, s. 3), proved payments of principal and interest, within six years before suit, and before the passing of The Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, by a co-contractor with B.; and it was stated, in a special case, that such payments were made with the knowledge and consent of B.-Held by the Court of Q. B.: that, by virtue of sect. 14 of The Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, assuming it to be applicable to a transaction before the Act, such proof did not bar the operation of stat. 21 Ja. 1, c. 16, s. 3; for such a finding K. B. XLix.-10 290 JACKSON V. WOOLLEY 8EL.aBL.TI8. as to the knowledge and consent of B. did not shew that the defendant was charged otherwise than by reason only of payment of any principal or interest by any co-contractor or co-debtor. And that sect. 14 is so applicable. Judgment for defendant.-And, per Crompton J., proof of express verbal consent by a defendant to a payment by a co-contractor would not take the case out of the 14th section.-Judgment reversed in Excb. Cb., on the ground that sect. 14 of The Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, does not apply to the case of a payment made before the Act. [Reversed in Exchequer Chamber, 8 El. & Bl. 784; 27 L. J. Q. B. 448; 4 Jur. N. S. 656; 6 W. R. 686. Distinguished, Pardo v. Bingham, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 740. Referred to, Watson v. Woodman, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 731.] This was a special case stated by consent, without pleadings, to the following effect. The writ in the action was issued on the 23d of June, 1857. The action is brought to recover the sum of 861. 4s,, namely 801. balance of principal, and 61. 4s. interest thereon to the 16th November 1857, on a promissory note. The promissory note is as follows: "For value received we jointly and severally promise to pay to Mrs. Olive [779] Lowndes, or her order, upon demand, the sum of 1001. together with interest for the same after the rate of 41. 10s. per centum por annum. As wituess our hands this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The "Ironsides"
... ... operation But the remedy conferred is not against any other ship than that in which the goods are ... Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Viet c 97) ; Jackson v Woolley (8 E & B. 784) upon the 14th section, ... ...
-
Conradie v Van Niekerk
...daarvan (vgl. Laws v. Rutherfurd, 1924 A.D. 261 te bl. 263; Hepner v. Roodepoort-Maraisburg Town Council, 1962 (4) S.A. 772 (A.A.) te bl. 778; van der Merwe v. Die Meester en 'n Ander, 1967 (2) S.A. 714 (S.W.A.) te bl. 723. Mnr. Hefer het ook ·gesteun op die saak van Birrell v. MacKay, N.O.......
-
Wright v Hale
...formam imponere debet non prsiteritis." 2 Inst. 292, Bac. Abr Statute (C.). In Williams timtth (4 H. & N. 559), and Jackson v. Woolley (8 E. & B. 778, 784) it was held that the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Viet, c 97) could not be treated as having a letro-spective operation.......
-
Trust Bank van Afrika Bpk v Eksteen
...supra te A bl. 381; Ellis and Others v Laubscher, 1956 (4) SA te bl. 702; Hepner v Roodepoort-Maraisburg Town Council, 1962 (4) SA te bl. 778 - 9. Verweerder moes dus bewys dat eiser, met volle kennis van sy regte, besluit het om daarvan afstand te doen, hetsy uitdruklik, hetsy deur gedrag ......