Pott and Others, Assignees of John Ryle, a Bankrupt v Clegg
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1847 |
| Date | 01 February 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 1212
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 16 L. J. Ex. 210; 11 Jur. 289. Distinguished, Atkinson v. Bradford Third Equitable Building Society, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 381; In re Tidd; Tidd v. Overell, [1893] 3 Ch. 154. Referred to, Gurnett v. M'Kewan, 1872, L. R. 8 Ex. 13; Goodwin v. Rotarts, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 351; Arnold v. Cheque Bank, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 585; Clare v. Dresdner Bank, [1915] 2 K. B. 577.
pott and others, Assignees of John Eyle, a Bankrupt v. clegc;, Executor of '"6.V William Turner, Deceased. Feb. I, 1847.-Money deposited with a banker by his customer in the ordinary way, is money lent to the banker, with a super-added obligation that it is to be paid when called for by cheque ; anil consequently, if it remain in the banker's hands for six years, without any payment by him of the principal or allowance of interest, the statute of limitations is a bar to its recovery (dubitante Pollock, G. B.).-An admission by a bankrupt in his balance-sheet will not take a debt out of the statute of limitations as against his assignees. -An admission in an unsigned letter, written and sent by direction of the assignees of a bankrupt, by an accountant employed by them to wind up the affairs of the Iwnkrupt estate, will not take a debt of the bankrupt out of the statute of limitations. [B. 0. Ifi L. J. Ex. -210; 11 .fur. 289. Distinguished, Atkinxwi v. Bradford Third Equitable Buil/llug Society, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 381; lit, re Tidd; Tidd v. OvereU, [1893] 3 Gh. 154. Referred to, GfumeU \. M'Kmvan, 1872, L. R. 8 Ex. Hi; Goodwin v. liobarts, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 351; Arnold v. Cheque Rank, 1870, 1 C. P. D. 5H5 ; Clare v. Dt&sdner Bank, [1915] 2 K. B. 577.] Debt by the plaintiffs, as assignees of John iiyle, a bankrupt, against the defendant, as executor of William Turner, deceased, for money lent by the bankrupt before his bankruptcy to the defendant's testator, arid on an account stated with him. The defendant pleaded, first, that the testator was never indebted; secondly, as to 9181. 13s. 8d., parcel of the monies demanded, a set-off' for money lent by the testator to the bankrupt before the Hat, and without notice of any prior act of bankruptcy; thirdly, as to £101;), other parcel, payment by the defendant before action brought; and fourthly, as to the 9181. (3s. 8d., a set-off upon an account stilted between the testator and the plaintiff's as assignees. The plaintiff's traversed the payment alleged in ithe third plea, and to the [322] pleas of set-off replied the statute of limitations, ori which issue was joined. At the trial, before the late Mr. Justice Williams, at the last Spring Assizes at Chester, it appeared that the action was brought by the assignees of Mr. R,yle, who before his bankruptcy was a banker at Macclesfield, to recover the balance due upon a banking account of Mr. Turner, the defendant's testator. Mr. Eyle became bankrupt in 1841, at which time Mr. Turner had overdrawn his account to the amount of £1870. The defendant proved payment of £1015 to the plaintiffs before the commencement of this action, whereby the balance was reduced to £8o5, which he sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manning v Purcell
...On the above points they also referred to Gosden v. Dotterill (1 My. & K. 56), Stephenson v. Dmuson (3 Beav. 342), Pott v. Clegg (16 M. & W. 321), Varneyv. Hickman (5 C. B. 271); see also May v. Grave (3 De G. & S. 462), and Lowe v. Thom&s (Kay, 369). 4tL As to the household furniture: the ......
-
Callander v Howard
...147, 163), and Lord Denman, in Worihington v. Gnmsditch (7 Q. B. 479, 484), take a different view of the matter. Again, in Pott v. Gleg (16 M. & W. 321, 327), Parke, B., says: "In Ashby v. James, the parties met, and stated accounts, and struck a balance; that was equivalent to a payment by......
-
Bank of Baroda v Mahomed
...pp. 130 and 131: The practical bearing of this decision is on the question of the Statute of Limitations. Since the case of Pott v CleggENR16 M & W 321 in 1847 it has been laid down in text-books that, in the case of a current account, the statute runs from the time of the money being depos......
-
Husband v Davis
...the custom of bankers to honor the customer's drafts,-seems to set at rest the doubt entertained by the lord chief baron in Pott v. Ckgg (16 M. & W. 321, 328). [Williams, J. How do you get over the case of Wallace v. Kelsalll] Innes v. Stephenson was not cited there. In Stone v. Marsh (E. &......