Watson v Birch

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date27 February 1847
Date27 February 1847
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 721

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Watson
and
Birch

S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 188; 11 Jur 198. Followed, Jay v Johnstone [1893], 1 Q B 25, 189.

Statue of limitations Judgment. Debt.

[523] watson v. birch. Feb. 27, 1847. [S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 188; 11 Jur. 198. Followed, Jay v. Johnstone [1893], 1 Q. B. 25, 189.] Statute of Limitations. Judgment. Debt. The 40th section of the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, e. 27) applies to a case in which a judgment is sought to be enforced against the personal estate, as well as to a case in which it is sought to be enforced against the land of the debtor. 722 WATSON V. BIRCH A., a creditor of a person deceased, filed a bill on behalf of himself alone, against B., the personal representative of the debtor, and C.r who had in his posseswon certain papers belonging to the debtor, on which he claimed a lien for a debt alleged to be due to him from the deceased. The bill prayed for the usual accounts of the deceased's estate, and that it might be applied in a due course of administration; that A. might have access to the papers; and that the amount of C.'s lien, if any, might be ascertained and paid. The decree in the cause directed an acount to be taken of A.'a debt, and the amount to be paid out of a fund in Court; and, if the fund should be more than sufficient for that purpose, that what should) be found due to the other1 incumbrancers should be paid to them : but it did not, direct any account to be taken of those incumbrances: and, accordingly, the Master took an account of A.'s debt only. After it had been paid, C. presented a petition in the suit, praying for an account of what was due to him, and for payment of it out of the remainder of the fund. The order made on that petition directed the Master to inquire and state who were the vncumbraneers, other than A.t referred to by the decree. Held, that neither the institution of the suit nor any of the proceedings in it prevented the Statute of Limitations from running against C.'s claim. On the hearing of a petition and cross-petition, the former presented by Mary Elizabeth Endd, the personal representative of Richard Rudd, a judgment creditor of Samuel Birch who died in 1813, to be paid the debt out of a fund in Court which had arisen from Birch's assets; and the latter presented by Birch's personal representative, to have the fund transferred to him. One queition was, whether the 40th section of the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27) which the Cross-petitioner's counsel contended was a bar to the relief sought by the original petition, applied to a case in which payment of a judgment debt was sought, not out of [524] the real estate but out of the personal estate of the debtor. That section enacts that no action or suit or other proceeding shall be brought to recover any sum of money secured by any mortgage, judgment or lien, or otherwise charged upon or payable out of any land or rent, at law or in equity, or any legacy, but within twenty years next after a present right to receive the same shall have accrued to some person capable of giving a discharge for or release of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Lowsley v Forbes (t/a L.E. Design Services)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Luglio 1998
    ...For it appears that in Ireland judgments were commonly left outstanding for very long periods, apparently as a form of investment. 15In Watson v. Birch (1847) 15 Sim. 523, it was argued that the Act of 1833 did not apply to cases where the judgment creditor was seeking to execute on the deb......
  • Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc.
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 28 Giugno 2023
    ...scire facias. However, the 20-year absolute statutory bar prescribed by s. 40 of the 1833 Act remained and was held in Watson v Birch (1847), 15 Sim. 523 to apply equally to cases where the judgment creditor was seeking to execute on the debtor's personal 24 In 1874, section 40 of the 1833 ......
  • Lewis v Duncombe
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 9 Febbraio 1861
    ...is no case in which it has been held that a suit is one on behalf of a Defendant, who happens to be a necessary party. In Watson v. Birch (15 Sim. 523), it was held that even a decree between the parties had not that effect. This is not the suit of Mr. Hele's representatives, in any sense, ......
  • Evans v O'Donnell and Another
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 10 Novembre 1883
    ...4 C. L. 103. Johnson v. BellUNK 6 Ir. C. L. R. 526. O'Hara v. Creagh 3 Ir. Eq. R. 179. Sheppard v. DukeENR 9 Sim. 567. Watson v. BirchENR 15 Sim. 523; 16 L. J. Ch. 188. O'Hara v. Creagh 3 Ir. Eq. R. 179. Ex parte Tynte 15 Ch. Div. 125. Sutton v. Sutton 22 Ch. Div. 511. Fearnside v. Flint Ib......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT