Sidwell v Mason
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1857 |
| Date | 09 June 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 127
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Ex. 407, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 649. 5 W. R. 72. Referred to, Godwin v. Culley, 1859, 4 H. & N. 373. Followed, Cornforth v. Smithhard, 1859, 5 H. & N. 13, Chasemore v. Turner, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 509. Referred to, Skect v. Lindsay, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 316; Firth v. Shungsby, 1888, 58 L. T. 484, Cooper v. Kendall, (1909) 1 K. B. 408. Followed, Langrish v. Watts, (1903) 1 K. B. 641.
SiDWELL v. mason. June 9, 1857.-Debt for goods sold and work done Plea. Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff, within six years, had sent in his bill to the defendant The defendant wrote in answer as follows:-"I have received your bill. It does not specify sufficiently to which cottages the work is done, for instance (as to some of the items) I do not know where all this is done, I shall feel obliged if you will more particularly explain It is my wish to settle your account immediately, but being at a distance I wish everything very explicit and correct. I have asked H. to mark the agreements and send them to me, and I will return them by the first post with instructions to pay if correct." Held, that the letter was a sufficient acknowledgment to take the debt out of the Statute of Limitations [S. C. 26 L. J. Ex. 407 , 3 Jur. (N. S) 649, 5 \V. K. 72 Referred to, Godwin v. Calky, ItfW, 4 H. & N. 373 Followed, Cwnfvrtlt v Smithaid, 1859, 5 H & N. 13 , Ckasemore v Turnet, 1875, L U 10 Q B. 509. Referred to, Skfiet v Lindiat/, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 316 ; Firth v. Shngsby, 1888, 58 I,. T. 484 , Cooper v. Kendall, [1909]' I K B 408. Followed, Langruh v. Wath, [1903] IK B. 641.] Debt for goods sold, work and labour, and on an account stated Plea. The Statute of Limitations. The cause was tried before the Under Sheriff of Middlesex, when the plaintiff proved that he did certain work amounting to 71. 10s 2d. upon some cottages for the defendant, in and prior to January 1851, and sent in his bill in October of that yeai. The action was commenced in February 1857 The following letter was put in as an answer to the Statute of Limitations :- " Fordham Mills, Halstead, Essex, "1 Nov. 51 " Dear Sir,-I have received your bill. It 'does not, I think, [307] specify sufficiently to which cottages the work is done, foi instance you say- s d. " 52 feet feather boards .... 96 Man 1 day, 200 lOd nails . 5 8 Bricklayer 1 day 6 C Bricks and mortar . 3 3 100 of tiles . 4 9 Labour as per agreement 4 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v Redman
...The following cases were cited :-Tanner v. Smart (6 Barn. & C. 603); Hurt v. Prendergast (14 Maes. & W. 745); tfidwdl v. Mason (2 Hurl. & N. 306); Mountstephen v. Brooke (3 Barn. & Aid. 141); Eicke v. Nokes (Moo. & M. 303); Baillie v. Lord Inchiyuin (1 Esp. 435); Grenfell v. Girdlestone (2 ......
-
Spencer v Hemmerde
...which he impliedly admits rests upon him, that is all. 25 In my view, the cases of Chasemore (L.R. 10, Q.B. 500); Sidwell v. Mason, 2 H. & N., 306, especially Baron Bramwell's observation at page 310; Cooper v. Kendall (1 K.B. 405), establish that an acknowledgment such as is contained in t......
-
Thomas Burrows and John Burrows v Mary Catherine Baker
...C. Court. THOMAS BURROWS AND JOHN BURROWS and MARY CATHERINE BAKER. Sidwell v. MasonENR 2 H. & N. 306. Holmes v. SmithUNK 8 Ir. C. L. R. 424. Prance v. SympsonENR 1 Kay. 678. Swann v. SowellENR 2 B. & Ald. 759. Hart v. PrendergastENR 14 M. & W. 741. Cockrill v. SparkesENR 1 H. & C. 699. Buc......
-
Holmes v Mackrell
...not as an acknowledgment at all, but merely to satisfy the bank as to his position. [Williams, J., referred to Sidwell v. Mason, 2 Hurlst. & N. 306, where Bramwell, B., says: "The word 'acknowledgment' is used, not as meaning [794] something different from 'promise,' but as applicable to ac......