Waugh v Cope
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 646
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C 10 L. J. Ex. 145. Explained, Nash v. Hodgson, 1856, 6 De G. M. & G. 474. Followed, In re Boswell, [1906] 2 Ch. 359.
wau !h v. col-k. Exoh. of Pleas. 1840.-The plaintiff, an attorney, had done professional business of various kinds for the defendant, in 1827 and several subsequent years. In July 1832, the defendant having been a witness on a lunacy inquiry, in which the plaintiff was concerned as solicitor1, the plaintiff wrote to him to ask what were his expenses on that occasion. The defendant, in reply, requested the plaintiff to allow what was usual, and place the same to his (the defendant's) account. In March, 1833, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant, informing him that the sums allowed were 21. 2s. and 10s. (id., inclosing receipts for those sums for the defendant's signature, and concluding, "I will give you credit for the sums in my account against you, agreeably to your note of the 21st July last." The defendant returned the receipts signed by him, and the 21. 2s. and 10s. 6d. were paid to the plaintiff on the production of those receipts. In 183S, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant a bill of costs, amounting to 289, the first item being in 1827, and the two last in 1S30 and 1831. These two were charges for 3 and 5 cash lent; the rest of the bill was for professional business. In an action on this bill, commenced iu Jan. 1839 :-Held, that the letters given in evidence did not sufficiently shew that the 21. 2s. and 10s. (id. were paid in part discharge of the debt for which the action was brought, so as to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, as to any part of the demand. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 145. Explained, Nash v. Hodgson, 185(5, 6 I)e G. M. & G. 474. Followed, In re Boxwell, [1906] 2 Ch. 359.] This was an action for the work and labour, &c., of the plaintiff as an attorney, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded, 1st, non assumpsit; 2ndly, the Statute of Limitations, and 3rdly, a set-oft': on which issues were taken and joined. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the Middlesex sittings after Easter Term, 1839, it was agreed that the amount of the plaintitt's bill of costs, and the liability of the defendant, should, in the event of a verdict being found for the plaintiff', he referred to the Master; and the only question which was entered into at Nisi 1'rius was, whether the Statute of Limitations applied to the whole or any portion of the plaintiff's claim. The bill of costs delivered by the plaintiff amounted in the whole to the sum of 289, and all the items were dated above six years before the commencement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...1 Cr. M. & R. 252, Tippets v. Heane. ò2 Cr. M. & R. 723, Waters v. Tomkins. 5 Bing. N. C. 453, Mills v. Fowkes. 7 Scott, 444, S. C. 6 M. & W. 824, Waugh v. Cope.. The principle being that the part payment operates as an acknowledgment from which a new promise to pay can be implied, it foll......
-
Nash v Hodgson
...on the principle that a simple payment has not the effect of reviving a debt barred by the statute. Then came the case of Waugh v. Copt (6 M. & W. 824), of which the facts were these ; the Plaintiff an attorney had done professional business for the Defendant in 1827 and several subsequent ......
-
Mulcahy v O'Sullivan
...17 L. R. Ir. 543. (4) 3 L. R. Ir. 222. (5) 70 I. L. T. R. 224. (6) [1909] A. C. 633. (1) [1922] 2 A. C. 507. (2) 1 Cr. M. & R. 252. (3) 6 M. & W. 824. (1) 2 Stark (2) 11 Q. B. 742. (3) 46 L. T. N. S. 885. (4) 12 Ir. C. L. R. 495. (5) [1919] A. C. 533. (1) Ir. R. 10 C. L. 188. (2) [1919] 1. ......
-
Murtagh v Crawford
...N. S. 740. Willis v. Newham 3 Y. & Jer. 518. Maghee v. O'NeillENR 7 M. & W. 531. Waters v. TomkinsENR 3 Cr. M. & R. 722. Wough v. CopeENR 6 M. & W. 824. Ashby v. JamesENR 11 M. & W. 542. HYde v. JohnstonENR 2 Bing. N. C. 776. Moore v. StrongENR 1 Bing. N. C. 441. Bewley v. Power Hay. & Jo. ......