Maghee and Wife v O'Neil
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1841 |
| Date | 27 January 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 877
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 326.
ma.ghee and wife . O'NEiL. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 27, 1841.-A verbal acknowledgment by the debtor, within six years, of the part payment of a debt, is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 326.] Debt for money lent by the female plaintiff to the wife of the defendant before their respective marriages, and on an account stated. Pleas, nunquam iudebitatus, and the statute of limitations. At the trial before Lord Dennian, C. J., at the last Flintshire assizes, it appeared that the action was brought to recover 40, the balance of a sum of 50, alleged to have been lent by the female plaintiff to the defendant's wife, who was her sister, more than six years before the commencement of the action. For the purpose of taking the case out of the statute of limitations, the plaintiffs called a person named Cain, who proved, that about two years ago the defendant's wife requested him to go with her to the Savings' Bank at Holy well, in order to draw out .10, for the purpose of paying that sum to her sister, in part discharge of 50, which she said her sister had lent her several years before. The witness went with her accordingly, but in consequence of her having brought a wrong book, they did not obtain the money. About a week afterwards, Gain saw her again, when she told him ate had taken out the 10 from the bank, and had paid it to her sister. It was objected for the defendant, on the authority of the case of Willis v. Newham (3 Y. & J. 518), that a part payment, to defeat the [532] operation of the statute of limitations, could not be proved merely by the parol declaration of the debtor. Waters v. Tompkints (2 C. M. & R. 723) was also referred to. The Lord Chief Justice thought the case was taken out of the statute, and under his direction a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, damages 40, leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit. Jervis having obtained a rule nisi accordingly, citing Willis v. Newham, Waters v. Ttmipkins, Trentham v. Deverill (3 Bing. N. C. 397 ; 4 Scott, 128), and Baylty v. Athlon (J12 Ad. & E. 493; 9 Law J. Rep. (N. S.) Q. B. 376 ; 4 P. & D. 214). : Hayea now shewed cause. The statute 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, s. 1, which provides that bo acknowledgment or promise by words only shall be sufficient to take any case out (if the operition of the statute of limitations, unless it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...of an acknowledgment in writing signed by him. 3 Y. & Jerv. 518, Willis v. Newham. 12 A. & E. 493, Bayley v. Ashton. 4 P. & D. 204, S. C. 7 M. & W. 531, Maghee v. O'Neil. 9 M. & W. 615, Eastwood v. Saville. However, when the fact of payment has been legally proved, the parol admissions of t......
-
Bevan against Gething
...how far evidence of this kind is admissible to support or explain other proof of a payment. In the subsequent case of Maghee v. O'Neil (7 M. & W. 531), where the decision in Willis v. Newham (3 Y. & J. 518. Tyrwh. & G. 137), was adhered to, Lord Abinger C.B. said: "If this question were res......
-
Murtagh v Crawford
...147. Eastwood v. SavilleENR 9 M. & W. 615. Bevan v. Gething 3 Ad. & El. N. S. 740. Willis v. Newham 3 Y. & Jer. 518. Maghee v. O'NeillENR 7 M. & 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......
-
Betty Eastwood v Saville
...as was decided in IViiiif, v. Newham (3 You. & J. 518), Bayley v. Ashton (12 A. & E. 493; 4 1'er. & I). 214), and Maghee v. O'Neill (7 M. & W. 531); and that such an acknowledgment must be in writing, and signed by the defendant; but if part payment be by any means shewn, that is enough; an......