Jones v Ryder
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1331
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 H. & H. 256; 7 L. J. Ex. 216.
[32] joneh v. ryder. Exch. of Pleas. 1838.-A promissory note, improperly stamped, is not admissible as a memorandum to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, under the 9 (too. 4, c. 14, a. 8. That section applies otdy to instruments which might be stamped with an agreement stamp.-A mere parol statement of an antecedent debt, without any new contract or consideration, made within six years before action brought, does not constitute a sufficient cause of action to prevent the operation of the Statute of Limitations. [S. C. 1 H. & H. 25C ; 7 L. J. Ex. 210.] Debt in 151. for interest, and in 201. on an account stated. Pleas, nunquam indebitatus, and the statute of limitations. At the trial before Williams, J., at tho last Montgomeryshire assizes, the only witness called for the plaintiff was his sister, who stated as follows :-"On the 5th of January, 1832, the defendant came to the plaintiff's house, and said he was como to settle with him. Tho defendant asked for the old note. An old account for 321. was produced ; it was for money the defendant had had upon use: the defendant put it into the tire. There was 121. from the old account, and 31. they put to it; they reckoned it up to 151.: then the defendant made a new note." The note so rnucle was then put in and proved by the witness ; it was as fallows :- "Up0n demand, I promise to pay to Jeremiah Jones the sum of 151., with lawful interest ior the same, for value received this 5th day of January, 1832. " The mark of ' " R. ryder. M Elinor Jones." The note, however, on its production, appeared to be on a, Is. instead of a, Is. Gd. stamp, and was therefore objected to as inadmissible, on tho authority of Green, v. Davien (4 B. & Or. 235; 0 D. & R. 300), and Jardina v. Payne (I B. & Adol. 603). The plaintiff's counsel contended that it was admissible, at all events, as a memorandum in writing to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, under the 8th section of Lord Tenterdon's Act, 9 Geo. 4, c. 14 ; and cited Moms v. Dix/m (4 Ad. & E. 845 : G Nev. & M. 438); and further, that the parol statement of a ;-[33]-count constituted a sufficient cause of action within the six years : timi/h \'. Forty (4 Car. & P. 120). The learned .Judge allowed the note to be read, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff' for 151. debt, and interest 41. 12s. 6d., giving the defendant leave to move to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...note, improperly stamped, is not admissible; for the exemption extends only to instruments which might be stamped with an agreement stamp. 4 M. & W. 32, Jones v. Ryder,,] English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 672 COURT OF KING'S BENCHHodsden against Harridge Referred to, Lee v. Wilmot, 1866, L......
-
Webber v Tivill
...made within six years before action brought, does not constitute a sufficient cause of action to prevent the operation of the statute. 4 M. & W. 32, Jones v. Ryder. 5 M. & W. 241, 248, Hopkins v. Logan. 1 M. & W. 323, Beeves v. Hearne. C. P. E. T. 1844, Clark v. Alexander, (not yet reported......
-
Parmiter v Parmiter
...1854, with the inclosed note. This note is not admissible as evidence of acknowledgment for want of a proper stamp: Jones v. Ryder (4 M. & W. 32), Mathesm v. Boss (2 H. L. Gas. 286), Morris v. Dixon (4 Ad. & E. 845), Evans v. Prothero (1 De G. M. & G. 572). The acknowledgment must amount to......
-
Ashby v James
...now sufficient to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations; there must be an acknowledgment or promise in writing. Jones v. Ryder (4 M. & W. 32) is expressly in point. It was there held, that a parol statement of account between the parties as to a debt previously ascertained is not ......