Moore v Strong
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1835 |
| Date | 22 January 1835 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 1187
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
moore 0. strong. Jan. 22,1835. A conversation at the time of a purchase, is admissible in evidence for the Defendant, in an action for the price of the goods, although it may let in a set-off otherwise barred by the statute of limitations. Debt for goods sold. The Defendant pleaded a set-off to a greater amount than the debt claimed; to which plea the Plaintiff replied the statute of limitations. The goods in respect of which the Plaintiff sought to recover were sold to the Defendant in June 1830, and subsequently. The articles in respect of which the set-off was claimed were all delivered to the Plaintiff in October 1825. There were no mutual accounts between the Plaintiff and Defendant till 1830. The action was commenced in 1833. The Plaintiff having proved the delivery of goods to the Defendant in 1830, the Defendant called a witness, whom he proposed to examine respecting a conversation which, at the time of the sale of the goods in 1830, passed between the Plaintiff and Defendant touching the debt due to the Defendant from the Plaintiff for the articles delivered in 1825. An under-sheriff, before whom the cause was tried, [442] rejected this evidence, on the ground that the set-off was barred by the statute of limitations. A verdict having been given for the Plaintiff, Cottingham obtained a rule nisi for a new trial on the ground that this evidence had been improperly rejected, the Defendant's set off coming within the description of merchants' accounts, which are excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations. Humfrey, who shewed cause, contended that merchants' accounts do not fall within the exception of the statute, unless they are mutual; Cotes v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murtagh v Crawford
...& R. 722. Wough v. CopeENR 6 M. & W. 824. Ashby v. JamesENR 11 M. & W. 542. HYde v. JohnstonENR 2 Bing. N. C. 776. Moore v. StrongENR 1 Bing. N. C. 441. Bewley v. Power Hay. & Jo. 368. Bateman v. Pinder 3 Q. B. 574. Willis v. NewhamENR 2 Y. & J. 518. Maghee v. O'NeillENR 7 M. & W. 535. Bayl......