Martin v Delboe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 62
IN THE KING'S BENCH, EXCHEQUER, COURT OF CHANCERY
martin versus dblboe. S. C. 1 Lev. 298. 2 Saund. 124, 5, 6. 1 Sid. 465. 1 Mod. 70. 2 Keb. 674, 696, 717. Fide I Jon. 401. Yelv. 227. 2 Lev. 118, 124. 1 Mod. 13, 41. 1 Sid. 84, 306. 1 Saund. 23. 2 Saund. 74. In an assumpsit the plaintiff declared, that he was a merchant, and the defendant being also a merchant, was indebted to him in 13001. And a communication being had between them of this debt, the defendant promised him in consideration thereof, that he should have a share to the value of his debt, in a ship of the defendant's, which was then bound for the Barbadoes; and that upon the return of the ship, he would give him a true account, and pay him his proportion. And sets forth, that the ship did go the said voyage, and returned to London ; and that after the defendant, with some other owners, had [90] made an account of the merchandize returned in the said ship, which amounted to 90001. and that the plaintiff's share thereof came to 17001. which he had demanded of the defendant, and he refused to pay it, &c, To this the defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations, and the plaintiff demurred. Alledging, that this action was grounded upon merchants accounts, which were excepted out of the statute. Tho' if an action be brought for a debt, upon an account stated between merchants, the statute is pleadable, as was adjudged in this Court last Hillary-term, between Webber and Petit; yet here there being no account ever stated 1VENTRI8.M. TBIN. ANNO 22 CAR. II. IN B. R. 63 between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown; Bristol Corporation v Ross
...in the old times that none of the statutes of forcible entry apply to the expulsion by the owner of a tenant at will, see Anonymous (1653) 1 Ventris 89; Rex v. Dorney (1697) 1 Salk 260; Rex v. Bathurst (1755) Sayer 225; but, even if this is no longer true (2) in any case the statutes only a......
-
Webber v Tivill
...stated and unstated, as it was said, had been often agreed, and was not denied by the Court. 1 Sid. 465, Martin v. Delbo. S. C. 1 Mod. 70. 1 Vent. 89. 1 Lev. 298. So where in an indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received to the plaintiff's use, and a quantum iiiendt for wares sold, an......
-
Gould v Johnson
...the defendant must plead quod actio non accrevit, &c. Vide ante, pi. 4. 2 Show. 79, 126. 1 Mod. 71, 268. 2 Saund. 66, 125. 1 Saund. 36, 37. 1 Vent. 89. 2 Keb. 674. 1 Lev. 298, S. C. 368 LIMITATIONS 2 8A1KELD, 423. Ante, 25. Far. 143. Holt 34. See 1 Mod. 71, 89, 268, 269. 2 Mod. 311. 1 Lev. ......
-
Isaac Robinson, surviving Administrator of the Estate of George Robinson, deceased, - Appellant; Daniel Alexander, on behalf of himself and other the Creditors of the said Intestate, George Robinson, - Respondent
...was no bar, because the account was not final, and also that it was between merchants. Martin v. Delbo, 1 Sid. 465.; S.C. 1 Mod. 70.; 1 Vent. 89.; 1 Lev. 298. In this case it was held that, after an account stated, it is not within the exception of the statute 21 Jac. c. 16. Farrington v. L......