Sterndale v Hankinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1827 |
| Date | 20 June 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 625
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Manby v. Manby, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 103. Observed upon, In re Greaves, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 551.
Debtor and Creditor. Statute of Limitations.
[393] sterndale v. hankinson. June 19, 20, 1827. [See Manby v. Manby, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 103. Observed upon, In re Greaves, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 551.] Debtor and Creditor. Statute of Limitations. A bill filed by one creditor on behalf of himself and the others will prevent the Statute of Limitations from running against any of the creditors who come in under the decree. A., the widow and administratrix of B., continues B.'s trade after his decease. B. at his death was indebted to C. on balance of account. A. continues to receive goods from, and to make payments to C. as B. had done, and she is charged in account by C. with the debt. The payments made by her to C. exceed the debt: but a balance is ultimately due to C. Held that B.'s debt was discharged by A.'s payments, and that the ultimate balance cannot be proved as a debt against B.'s estate. The bill was filed on the 5th of May 1812 by T. Sterndale and J. Eobley, grocers and co-partners, and Edward Fogg, W. Birch and John Hampson, also grocers and co-partners, on behalf of themselves and all other the creditors of George Hankinson, 626 STERN DALE V. HANKINSON 1 SIM. 394. grocer, deceased, who should come in, &c., against William Hankinson, Margaret Hankinson, widow, John Marsden and John Walton. The facts stated in the bill, and admitted by the answers, were that George Hankiuson, for many years before, and at the time of his decease, carried on the trade of a grocer at Pendletori in Lancashire; that he was at his death a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws; arid was also seised of real estates, and possessed of personal estate ; that he died on the 27th of June 1810, intestate, leaving the Defendant, W. Hankinson, his eldest son and heir at law, and the Defendant, Margaret Hankinson, his widow ; that Margaret Hankinson was his administratrix; that he was at his decease indebted to the Plaintiffs Sterndale & Kobley in 72, 15s. 4d., and to the Plaintiffs Fogg, Birch & Hampson, in 35, 4s. 2d., and to divers other persons; that after his death his widow carried on the trade of a grocer; that a commission of bankrupt had issued against her, under which she had been declared a bankrupt; and that the Defendants Marsden and Walton were her assignees. The bill prayed for the usual accounts of the debts due to the Plaintiffs and the other creditors who should come in, &c., and [394] of the intestate's real and personal estates, and that those estates might be applied in payment of the debts of the Plaintiff's and the other creditors of the intestate who should come in, &c. On the 14th of April 1818 the decree, which is usual in suits of the like nature, was made. The Master reported that several persons had come in before him and claimed debts to be due to them from the intestate, none of which he had thought fit to allow, except one, which had been proved by the Plaintiffs Birch and Hampson, the surviving partners of the late Plaintiff Fogg; and that his reason for disallowing the debts claimed by the other persons was that the testator died in 1810, and that the decree was not made until eight years afterwards, and that no proceedings had been taken for the recovery of those debts, whereby the claimants were, as he conceived, barred of any remedy. Three of the persons whose claims had been disallowed excepted to this report. Mr. Agar, Mr. Parker, Mr. Barber and Mr. Bickersteth, in support of the exceptions. It is the Master, and not the administratrix, who insists that these debts are barred by the Statute of Limitations. It was decided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harpur v Buchanan
...allow the claim for the principal sum, with six years' arrears of interest prior to the commencement of the action, costs with demand. (1) 1 Sim. 393. (2) 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. (3) 25 L. R. Ir. 433. (4) See Darley Chancery Orders, p. 101. Harpur and Buchanan Mortgagee's suit for benefit of all in......
-
AIB Plc (plaintiff) v Dormer
...v BUCHANAN 1919 1 IR 1 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S32(2)(A) ARCHDALL v ANDERSON 1890 25 LRI 433 STERNDALE v HANKINSON 1827 1 SIM 393 57 ER 625 ROYAL BANK OF IRELAND LTD v SPROULE 1940 IR JUR REP 33 ALPHA CO LTD, IN RE 1903 1 CH 203 NIXONS ESTATE, IN RE 1874 9 IR EQ 7 COLCLOUGH, IN RE 185......
-
Toft v Stephenson
...with respect to the statute: Ravenscroft v. Frisby (1 Coll. C. C. 16,23), Wrixon v. Viz& (3 D. & W. 104), Sterndale v. Hankinson (1 Sim. 393). The answers in the cause of Feary v. Stephenson amount to acknowledgments of the Plaintiffs' right: Lord, St. John v. Boughton (9 Id. 219). Fourthly......
- Motor Terms Company Pty Ltd v Liberty Insurance Ltd
-
The application of statutory time limitation provisions by analogy to claims in equity's exclusive jurisdiction
...must be an inference of fact, and not an inference of law, and therefore cannot be made on demurrer.17 In Sterndale v Hankinson (1827) 1 Sim 393; 57 ER 625 the Vice-Chancellor stated: The other fallacy is, that the statute bars the suit in Equity; which it does not. But, as Courts of Equity......