Rackham v Marriott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1857 |
| Date | 12 May 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1190
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 25 L. J. Ex 324; 2 Jur (N. S.) 619, 4 W. R 710 affirmed, 2 H & N. 196 Referred to, Sidwell v. Mason, 1857, 2 H. & N 309
1190 RACKHAM V. MARRIOTT I H. & N 234. [234] RACKHAM v. marrioit. June 9, 1856.-In answer to an application for payment of a debt the debtor wrote as follows -" I do not wish to avail rnybelf of the Statute of Limitations to refuse payment of the debt. I have not the means of paying and must crave a continuance of youi indulgence. My situation as a clerk does not afford me the means of laying by a shilling, but in tune I may reap the benefit of my services in an augmentation of salary that may enable me to propose some satisfactory arrangement I am much obliged to you for your forbearance."-Held, no sufficient acknowledgment or piomise to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations. [S C. 25 L. J. Ex 324 ; 2 Jur (N. S.) 619, 4 W. E 710 affirmed, 2 H & N. 196 Eeferred to, Sidwell v. Mason, 1857, 2 H. & N 309 ] Debt for money had and received, money lent, and on accounts stated Plea (inter alia): The Statute of Limitations. At the trial, before Willes, J., at the Liverpool Spring Assizes, the plaintiff's counsel, in order to sustain the issue on the Statute of Limitations, put in the following lettei, written in answer to one, calling the attention of the defendant to the plaintiff's claim, and stating that if something was not done the debt would be barred by the Statute of Limitations. Liverpool, Wednesday, Jan 2G, 183^. Dear Sir,-Your note of the 20th I received on Monday, having been out of town a few days, or I should have replied to it before. I beg to say, that I do not wish to avail myself of the Statute of Limitations to refuse payment of the debt alluded to in your note, but I have not the means of paying it and must crave a continuance of your indulgence. My situation as a salaried clerk does not afford me the means of laying by a shilling, but in the course of time, if I continue in my present employment, I may reap the benefit of my services in an augmentation of my salary that may enable me to propose some satisfactory arrangement to you I am much obliged to you for your forbearance, and I arn sorry it is not in my power to correspond to your kindness, but I would rather tell you the truth th in deceive you by fal&e promises -Believe me, dear Sir, yours truly, F marrhjtt. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant's counsel objected that the lettei did not amount to an acknowledg-[235]-ment or promise sufficient to bat the defence under the statute. The learned Judge thought that the letter amounted to a promise to pay when of ability, and told the jury that if they were satisfied by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v Smith
...to take the case out of the statute; Richardson v. Barry (29 Beav. 22); Hart v. Prendergast (14 Mee. & W. 741); fiackham v. Marriott (2 Hurl. & Nor. 196); and that the 5 was not attributable to the debt; Nash v. Hodgson (6 De G. M. & G. 474). Secondly, that the legacy was bequeathed express......
-
Francis against Hawkesley
...is indebted to the defendant. Goate v. Goate (I H. & N. 29) appears to me to be a direct decision to the contrary. Rule absolute (b). (d) 1 H. & N. 234. Judgment affirmed in Exch. Chamber, 2 H. & N. 196. (J) Crompton J. had left the Court. English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 1204 IN THE COU......
-
Holmes v Mackrell
...as to his solvency. [Crowder, J. How is it the less an account stated, because it contains something else ?] In Rackham v. Marriott, 2 Hurlst. & N. 196, in answer to an application for payment of a debt, the debtor wrote as follows,-" I do not wish to avail myself of the statute of limitati......
-
Sidwell v Mason
...of a debt to an amount which may be estimated by a jury, and a piomise to pay the amount if found to be correct. Rackham v. Marnott (1 H. & N. 234. In Error, ante, p. 196) and Hait v Piendeigast (14 M. & W. 741) are cases where the acknowledgment was coupled with a hope, and not a promise t......