Parmiter v Parmiter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 1861 |
| Date | 11 January 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 957
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES. BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL.
S. C. 1 J. & H. 135; 30 L. J. Ch. 508; 3 L. T. 799; 8 W. R. 578.
[461] parmiter v. parmiter. Before the Lords Justices. Dec. 12, I860. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell. Jan. 11, 1861. [S. C. 1J. & H. 135; 30 L. J. Ch. 508 ; 3 L. T. 799 ; 8 W. R. 578.] A debtor sent to one of the persons beneficially interested under the will of his creditor a promissory note insufficiently stamped for the amount of the debt, with a letter referring to the note as being for the money due. Held, that the letter was not of itself a sufficient promise or acknowledgment to exclude the operation of the Statute of Limitations, and that the note could not be received in evidence to shew what the promise was, that being a direct and not a collateral purpose. Leave given, on an application ex parte, to set down a petition of appeal where the appellant was not a party to the cause. This case came first before the Lords Justices upon a motion on behalf of the Appellant for leave to set down the petition of appeal, although presented without leave. The Appellant was not a party to the cause, but had tendered under the decree a proof of a debt which had been allowed by the chief clerk in Chambers. Ou a summons to vary the certificate in this respect being adjourned into Court and coming on, to be heard with the hearing of the cause on further consideration, Vice-Chancellor Wood directed that the chief clerk's certificate should be reviewed with respect to the debt in question, whereupon the Appellant presented his petition of appeal from the Vice-Chancellor's decision and obtained an order for the cause to be set down to be reheard. He was, however, advised that this order was irregular for want of leave to present the petition having been previously obtained; and the object of the motion, which was made ex parte, was for leave to serve the order for setting down the petition of appeal, and bring on the appeal to be heard, although leave had not been obtained to present the petition. Mr. C. Swanston, in support of the motion, said that Mr. Monro, the registrar, had referred to a case of [462] Hodgson v. Clarke (January 1860), in which leave had been given on an ex parte application to present a petition of appeal, and he submitted that the Court might give the leave retrospectively. their lordships directed, that tho Petitioner should be at liberty to serve the order for setting down the petition of appeal and to bring it on to be heard, notwithstanding leave to present the petition had not been previously obtained. Jan. 11,1861. The appeal now came on to be heard, and the question was, whether there had been a sufficient acknowledgment to take the debt, which was the subject of the appeal, out of the Statute of Limitations. The case is reported below in the 1st Volume of Messrs. Johnson and Hemming's Eeporta (page 135), where the facts are fully stated. They are shortly as follows :- The Appellant was the executor of Mary Caines, a deceased aister of the testator, and the debt which he claimed to be due to him as such executor from the estate of the testator consisted of a sum of 1000 in respect of money lent by the testatrix to the testator, and of a legacy of 100 due from the testator to the testatrix under the will of her mother, of which he was the executor. 958 PARMITER V. PARMITER 3 DE 0. P. & J. 463. The testatrix held as security for the 1000 advanced and lent by her to the testator a promissory note with an indorsement thereon, which were as follows :- " I promise to Mary Caines or order on demand the sum of eight hundred pounds with lawful interest for [463] the same for value received. This sixth day of August, One thousand eight hundred and eighteen. "J800," " james pabmitbr." " 1819, July 7th.-Eeceived of Mary Caines the sum of 200. "james pabmiteb." The testatrix held no security for the 100 legacy bequeathed by the will of her mother, who died upwards of twenty years before the claim was made. The testatrix, by her will dated 25th November 1833, gave and bequeathed all her monies, securities for money and all other her personal estate and effects to her executors Edward Parmiter (the claimant) and Thomas Parmiter, since deceased, upon trusts for realization arid investment, and for payment of the interest and dividends arising therefrom unto her daughter Mary, the wife of James Parmiter the younger, for her life for her absolute use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte John Wensley
...to. See also Rex v. Hall, 3 Stark. 67 ; Bex v. Reculist, 2 Leach, 706 ; Evans v. Prothero, 1 De G. M. & G. 572 ; Parmiter v. Parmiter, 1 J. & H. 135. English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 110 BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD WESTBURY. Ex parte John Wensley S. C. 32 L. J. Bk. 23; 9 Jur. (N. S.),......