Whippy and Another against Hillary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1832 |
| Date | 18 April 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 143
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 168: at Nisi Prius, 5 Car. & P. 209. Followed, Routledge v. Ramsay, 1838, 8 Ad. & E. 224.
whippy and another against hillary. Wednesday, April 18th, 1832. The Statute of Limitations is not barred by a letter in which the defendant states, " That family arrangements have been making to enable him to discharge the debt; that funds have been appointed for that purpose, of which A. is trustee; and that the defendant has handed the plaintiffs account to A.; that some time must elapse before payment, but that the defendant is authorised by A. to refer the plaintiff to him for any further information." For, by the statute 9 G. 4, e. 14, s. 1, the acknowledgment in writing to bar the statute must be signed by the party chargeable thereby; and such letter does not charge the defendant. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 168 : at Nisi Prius, 5 Car. & P. 209. Followed, Boutledge v. Eamsay, 1838, 8 Ad. & E. 224.] Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Pleas, the general issue and Statute of Limitations, upon which issue was joined. At the trial before Littledale J., at the sittings for Middlesex after last Hilary term, the only question was, whether or not the following letter, [400] written by the defendant to the plaintiffs, was sufficient to take the ease out of the statute. " I have hitherto deferred writing to you regarding your demand upon me, in consequence of some family arrangements through which I should be enabled to discharge your account, and which were in progress, not having been completed. I have now the satisfaction to inform you, that an appointment of sufficient funds has been made for this purpose, of which H. Y., Esq., Essex Street, Strand, is one of the trustees, to whom I have given in a statement of your account, amounting to 981. 8s. It will, however, be unavoidable that some time must elapse before the trustees can be in cash to make these payments, but I have Mr. Y.'s authority to refer you to him for any further information you may deem requisite on this subject." 144 DOE V. JEPSON 3B.&AD.101. The learned Judge directed a nonsuit, giving leave to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiffs. Campbell now moved accordingly. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...a promise to pay the debt, or an acknowledgment in writing from which such promise can be inferred. 1 Cr. & M. 483, Brigstocke v. Smith. 3 B. & Ad. 399, Whippy v. Hillan-y. 5 C. & P. 209, S. C. 8 Bing. 38, Kennett v. Milbank. 1 M. & Sc. 102, S. C. 2 Bing. N. C. 241, Linsell v. Bonsor. 2 Sco......
-
Courtenay v Williams
...were cited:-Rowtkdge v. Ramsay (8 Ad. & El. 221), Kennett v. Milbank (8 Bing. 38), Eaydon v. Williams (7 Bing. 163), Whippy v. Hillary (3 B. & Ad. 399), Higgins v. Scott (2 B. & Ad. 413), Mills v. Fowlces (5 Bing. N. C. 455), Linsell v. Bonsor (2 Bing. N. C. 241; S. C. 2 Scott, 399), Flower......
-
Story v Fry
...keep the remedy alive? We submit that it is merely conditional, and does not amount to an acknowledgment of any debt: Whippy v. Hillary (3 B. & Ad. 399); Eoutledge v. Ramsay (8 Ad. & Ell. 221); Fearn v. Lewis (6 Bing. *349; 4 M. & P. 1). [607] In addition to these objections, the Plaintiff ......
-
Routledge against Ramsey
...promise is not supported by proof of a qualified one, as "I will pay as soon as I can." The ground of decision in Whippy v. Hillary (3 B. & Ad. 399), was, that the promise was not contained in a writing signed " by the party chargeable thereby," according to stat. 9 G-. 4, c. 14, s. 1 ; the......