Routledge against Ramsey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1838 |
| Date | 05 May 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 821
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & P. 319; 1 W. W. & H. 232; 7 L. J. Q. B. 156; 2 Jur. 789.
routledge against ramsey. Saturday, May 5th, 1838. J. R., a debtor, having sums due to him, handed the accounts to his creditor, and wrote " I give the above accounts to you, so you must collect them and pay yourself, and you and I will then be clear. J. R." Held, that this acknowledgment did not imply a promise to pay, and was no answer, under stat. 9 G. 4, c. 14, to a plea of the Statute of Limitations. Per Lord Deiiman C. J. Whether such a written acknowledgment be conditional or unconditional is a question for the Court, not the jury, except where the document is connected with other evidence affecting the construction. [S. C. 3 N. & P. 319 ; 1 W. W. & H. 232; 7 L. J. Q. B. 156; 2 Jur. 789.] Assumpsit on a promissory note for 401., and for goods sold and delivered to the same amount. Plea, that the causes of action did not accrue within six years. Issue thereon. On the trial before Coleridge J. at the Carlisle Summer Assizes, 1836, the plaintiff put in a paper dated lesa than six years before the commencement of this, action, addressed to the plaintiff and signed by the defendant. It contained a list of names, apposite to which various sums were set down, and below was written, " Aldstone, 1 June, 1830.-Mr. Jas. Routledge, I give the above accounts to you, so you must collect them and pay yourself, and you and me will then be clear.-John, Ramsay." [222] The plaintiff had a verdict; but leave was given to move to enter a nonsuit, if the Court should think the above document no evidence in bar of the statute. In Michaelmas term, 1836, W. H. Watson moved for a rule to shew cause why a nonsuit should not be entered or a new trial had, on the ground that the document produced was no answer to the plea (a)2, and he cited Tanner v. Smart (6 B. & C. 603), and Whippy v. Hillary (3 B. & Ad. 399). A rule nisi was granted. (a)1 M. & M. 116. Lord Denman C.J. in the course of the argument referred to S. C. at Nisi Prins, 3 Car. & P. 55, and in Bane, Danson & Lloyd, 83 ; in which latter case the point taken in Knight v. Clements, supra, as to the question to be considered by the jury, does not appear to have come under discussion. (a)2 He also contended, that the paper (which bore no stamp) should have been, stamped as an assignment; but no rule was granted on this point. 822 ROUTLEDGB V. RAMSEY...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...2 Scott, 399, S. C. 5 Dowl. 570, Poynder v. Stuck. 3 M. & W. 402, Moirell v. Frith. 6 M. & W. 829, Waugk v. Cope, per Lord Abinger. 8 A. & E. 221, Boutledge v. Ramsay. 3 N. & P. 319, S. C. 9 C. & P. 209, Bucket v. Church. 9 M. & W. 629, Spang v. Wright. 12 M. 6 W. 159, Cripps v. Davies. Acc......
-
Edmonds v Goater
...B. & C. 603); Mmrell v. Frith (3 M. & W. 402); tipmg v. WrigU (9 M. & W. 629); Hart v. Prendergast (14 M. & W. 741); Rmttledge v. Ramsay (8 A. & E. 221); Cawley v. Furnell (20 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 197); Gardner v. M'Mahon (3 Q. B. 561). Mr. Roupell and Mr. Smythe, for the Plaintiff. Mr. E. F......
-
Hughes v Paramore
...to acknowledge that the bricks would be properly charged against Mr. Robinson. Cheslyn v. Dolby (4 Y. & C. 238), Eoutledge v. Ramsay (8 A. & E. 221), Waugh v. Cope (6 M. & W. 824), are also authorities in favour of the Appellants. It will, however, probably be argued that the value of the b......
-
Cripps and Others v William Davis
...said to prevent it, a general promise may and ought to be implied." Fearn v. Lewis (6 Bing. 349 ; 4 M. & P. 1) and Koulhilye v. liamxa-y (8 Ad. & E. 221 ; 3 Nev. & P. 319) are authorities to the same effect. 'The stat, 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, makes no difference in the law, except in requiring tha......