Wych v East India Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1734
Date01 January 1734
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1078


East India Company

Case 78.-wych v. east india company. [1734.] Lord Chancellor Talbot. An executor, administrator, or trustee for an infant neglects to sue within six years ; the statute of limitations shall bind the infant. The East India company were bound by contract to make an allowance of two rupees per cent, to the plaintiff's intestate, for which the plaintiff, the administrator de bonis non of his father, brought a bill. The intestate, with whom the company made the contract, was then beyond sea, and there died, leaving an infant son of tender years. Upon the death of the intestate, administration was granted to A. until the said son should come to twenty-one, ad usum et commodum of the infant, who at that time was about years of age. The administrator in trust for the infant never commenced any suit on this contract"; but the son within six years after his attaining twenty-one, brought this bill against the company, who pleaded the statute of limitations, viz. that the cause of action did accrue above six years before the suit commenced. Whereupon it was argued, that as the time did not run against the father, with whom the contract" was made, because he was beyond sea, and died there; so after the death of the father the son was an infant, and ought not to be barred or prejudiced by the neglect or default of his trustee, the administrator during his minority. [310] Lord Chancellor. The administrator during the infancy of the plaintiff had a right to sue ; and though the cestuy que trust was an infant, yet he must be (1) bound by the trustee's not suing in time; for I cannot take away the benefit of the statute of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Pendleton v Rooth
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 25 November 1859
    ...after the death of the testator; but, if so, a bar to the trustee was a bar against the cestui que trust: Wych v. The East India Company {3 P. Wms. 309); but, even were the law otherwise, the bar operates against the òcestuis que trust themselves, for the widow's estate ceased on her marria......
  • Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 16 April 1851
    ...B. & Cr. 181. Weale v. Lower Pol. 64. Blake v. FosterENR 8 T. R. 487. Cole v.Sewell 4 Dr. 7amp; War. 14. Wyche v. East India CompanyENR 3 P. Wms. 309. Jessop v. KingUNK 2 Ball & B. 94. Doe v. HuttonENR 3 Bos. & Pul. 643. Goodright v. Serle 2 Wils. 29. Dykes v. BlakeENR 4 Bing. N. C. 476. M'......
  • William Galbraith Quinton v George Frith, and Others
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 10 December 1868
    ...24. Doe v. TatchellENR 3 B. & Ad. 675. Fenton v. CleggENR 9 Exch. 680. Tyson v. JacksonENR 30 Beav. 384. Wyche v. The East India Co.ENR 3 P. Wms. 309. Cooper v. Warre 11 Ir. Jur. N. S. 38. Melling v. LeakENR 16 C. B. 653. James v. SalterENR 3 Bing. N. C. 544. ENR 16 C. B. 653. Doe v. Sturge......
  • The Right Hon. JOHN RICHARDS, one of the Barons of HM Court of Exchequer, CAROLINE RICHARDS, Widow, CAROLINE MARIA RICHARDS, otherwise WOODHOUSE, and another, v CROASDAILE MOLONY, HENRY MOLONY and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • 25 June 1850
    ...Mackworth 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 579. Hovenden v. Annesley 2 Sch. & Lef. 629. Pentland v. StokesUNK 2 Ball & B. 75. Wych v. East India CompanyENR 3 P. Wms. 309. March v. Russell 3 Myl. & Cr. 31. Hardwicke v. MyndENR 1 Anstr. 112. Noel v. RobinsonENR 1 Vern. 94. AnonymousENR 1 P. Wms. 494. Mannix v.......
  • 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