Slater, Executor of Mary Slater, against Lawson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1830 |
| Date | 12 November 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 835
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 4. For subsequent proceedings see 1 B. & Ad. 893. Explained, Fordham v. Wallis, 1853, 10 Hare, 228. Referred to, In re Wolmers-hausen, 1890, 62 L. T. 544; Astbury v. Astbury, [1898] 2 Ch. 118; Read v. Price, [1909] 1 K. B. 585; [1909] 2 K. B. 724.
slater, Executor of Mary Slater, against lawson. Friday, Nov. 12th, 1830. After the death of one maker of a joint and several promissory note signed by two, a payment upon it by the executor of the deceased party, will not take the debt out of the Statute of Limitations as against the survivor. [S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 4. For subsequent proceedings see 1 B. & Ad. 893. Explained, Fordham v. Wallis, 1853, 10 Hare, 228. Eeferred to, In re Wolmers-hawsen, 1890, 62 L. T. 544; Asfbury v. Asibury, [1898] 2 Ch. 118; Bead v. Price, [1909] 1 K. B. 585; [1909] 2 K. B. 724.] Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the testatrix on demand, with interest. Common money counts, and account stated. Pleas, the general issue, on which issue was joined, and the Statute of Limitations, upon which issue was tendered and joined. At the trial before Bayley J., at the Summer Assizes for Cumberland, 1830, it appeared that the note in question was a joint and several promissory note, dated 27th September 1810, signed by the defendant and one James Warwick, since deceased. The only evidence in answer to the plea of the Statute of [397] Limitations, was that of Warwick's executrix, who proved that she had paid interest on the note after his death, and within four years of the commencement of the action. For the defendant it was objected, that on the death of Warwick the joint liability cease'd, that his executrix and the defendant were liable severally only, and that a payment by her could not affect the defendant. The learned Judge directed a nonsuit, giving leave, however, to move that a verdict might be entered for the plaintiff. F. Pollock, on a former day in the present term, moved accordingly, but admitted that Afkins v. Tredgold (2 B. & C. 25), was decisive on the other side, if that case were taken as establishing that, after the death of one party to a joint and several note, his executor could not, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...the personal representatives of the deceased to take the ease out of the statute as against the survivor. Therefore, in Slater v. Lawson, 1 B. & Ad. 396, it was holden, that after the death of one maker of a joint and several promissory note signed by two, a payment upon it by the executor ......
-
Fordham v Wallis
...que trustent: Dames v. Edwards (7 Exch. 22), Atkins v. Tredgold(1 B. & C. 23), Scholey v. Walton (12 M. & W. 510), Slater v. Lawson (1 B. & Ad. 396), Tullock v. Dunn (Ey. & Mo. 416). That the payments made by the executors were not in their nature sufficient to found a new promise, to reviv......
-
Wall v Walsh
...Bench. Before O'BRIEN, FITZGERALD, and GEORGE, JJ. WALL and WALSH Atkins v. Tredgold 2 B. & Cr. 23. Slater v. LawsonENR 1 B. & Ad. 396. Johnson v. BellUNK 6 Ir. C. L. R. 526. Warrens v. O'Shea 5 Law Rec. N. S. 77; 1 Jebb & Symes, 504. Kelly v. Kelly 6 Law Rec. N. S. 222. Clarke v. Bodkin 13......
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...See Wynne v. Styan, 2 Phil 303. Warrens v. O'Shea 5 Law Rec. N. S. 77. ENRENRENR See Atkins v. Tredgold, 2 B. & C. 23; Slater v. Lawson, 1 B. & Ad. 396; Way v. Bassett, 5 Hare, 55; and see Putnam v. Bates, 3 Rus. 188. CASES IN EQUITY. 561 KIRKWOOD v. LLOYD. Interest on the judgments by p wa......