Loweth v Fothergill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1815 |
| Date | 12 May 1815 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 59
KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Beal v. Horlock, [1915] 3 K. B. 203.
[185] Friday, May 12, 1815. LOWETH V. FOTHERGILL (A demand being made by a seaman on the owner of a ship for wages, which had accrued during an embargo, he said, if others paid, he should do the same. Held, that this was a sufficient acknowledgement to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations.) [Referred to, Seal v. Horlock, [1915] 3 K. B. 203.] This was an action for seaman's wages, alledged to have been earned during the Russian embargo in the time of the Emperor Paul, under the circumstances mentioned in Beale v. Thompson, 3 Bos. & Pul. 405 , 4 East, 546. The defendant relied upon the Statute of Limitations. To get rid of this, the plaintiff proved, that having applied for payment in the year 1813, the defendant said, if others in Hull (to which port the ship belonged) paid the seamen for the time the embargo lasted, he should do the same. It was contended for the defendant, that this was no promise to take the case out of the statute, and that it was at any rate incumbent on the plaintiff to shew that others in Hull had paid. Lord EHeaborough.-I think this amounts to an acknowledgment, on which the * See Schmaling v. Tomlinsoa, C. P E. T. 55 Geo. Ill (0 DELAMAHSfER V...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...3 Bing. 638, SmlM v. Jacob. Peake, N. P. C. 127, Laiorence v. Worrall. 6 Esp. 66, Partingtmt v. Butcher. 2 Stark. 98, Thompson v. Osborne. 4 Camp. 185, Lmveth v. Fothergill. Holt, N. P. C. 380, Craig v. Cox. 2 B. & C. 149, 153, Clark v. Hougham. 3 D. & R. 322, S. C. 2 B. & C. 825, 826, Thor......