Archer v Leonard

JurisdictionIreland
CourtRolls Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date25 May 1863
Date25 May 1863

Rolls.

ARCHER
and

LEONARD.

Tanner v. Smart 6 B. & Cr. 603.

Hyleing v. HastingsENR 1 Lord Ray. 389; S. C., 1 Salk. 29.

Spong v. WrightENR 9 M. & W. 629.

Francis v. Hawkesly 1 Ell. & Ell. 1052.

Buckmaster v. RussellENR 10 C. B., N. S., 745.

Cockerell v. Sparkes 3 Fos. & Fin. 150; S. C., 32 Law Jour., Exch., 118.

Thompson v. Waithman 3 Dr. 628.

Mills v. FowkesENR 5 Bing. N. C. 455.

Tippets v. Heane 4 Tyrwb. 775.

Philips v. PhilipsENR 3 Hare, 299.

Smith v. Thorne 18 Q. B. 134.

Everett v. Robertson 1 Ell. & Ell. 16.

Hayden v. WilliamsENR 7 Bing. 163.

Holmes v. SmithIRIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 461; S. C., 8 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 424.

Sidwell v. MasonENR 26 Law Jour., Exch., 407; S. C., 2 H. & N. 306.

Waters v. The Earl of Thanet 2 Q. B. 757.

Williamson v. Naylor 3 Y. & W., Exch., 208.

Hill v. WalkerENR 4 K. & J. 166.

Smith v. PooleENR 10 Sim. 17; S. C., 10 Law Jour., N. S., Ch., 192.

Collis v. StackENR 1 H. & N. 605.

Hart v. PrendergastENR 14 M. & W. 741.

Maunsell v. HodgesIR 2 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 88.

Hyde v. JohnsonENR 2 Bing., N. C., 776.

Jackson v. Wooley Ell. & Bl. 784.

Cockerell v. Sparkes 32 L. J., N. S., Exch., 118.

Tanner v. Smart 6 B. & Cres. 704.

CHANCERY. REPORTS. 267 ARCHER v. LEONARD. (In the Rolls.) THIS was a suit for the administration of the assets of John LeonÂard deceased. The matter was referred to Master Brooke, under the 15th section of the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act 1850. The petitioner sued as administrator to his wife, in respect of a debt due to her by the intestate : but he filed a charge, claiming the amount of six bills of costs due to himself. Four of the bills of costs were for business done more than six years before the filing of the petition. The Statute of Limitations (16 & 17 Vic, c. 113, s. 20) was set up by the respondent as a defence ; but the Master held that the notices served by the respondent's solicitor [stated in the judgment, infra, pp. 271-72] took the claim out of the operation of the statute, and declared the petitioner entitled to all the bills of costs as against the assets of the intestate. The respondent appealed. Mr. Sherlock and Mr. Pilhington, in support of the appeal, argued, first, that the alleged acknowledgment contained in the notices was not signed by the party chargeable ; and the 16 & 17 Vic., c. 113, s. 24 (Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, in analogy to Lord Tenterden's Act (9 G. 4. c. 14), enacted that, in actions grounded upon any simple contract, no acknowledgment or promise shall be deemed sufficient evidence of a new or conÂtinuing contract, to take any case out of the operation of the provisions of that Act, in relation to the limitation of actions, or to deprive any party of the benefit thereof, unless such acknowÂledgment or promise shall be made or contained by or in some if one-sixth, should be taxed off, and requiring to be furnished with taxation.-Held, that the notice saved the bar from the Statute 268 CHANCERY REPORTS. writing, to be signed by the party chargeable thereby; and the Mercantile Amendment Act (19 & 20 Vic., c. 97, s. 13, does not apply to debts antecedent to the statute. Secondly, that the notice did not contain a sufficient promise to take the debt out of the operation of the statute 16 & 17 Vic., c. 113, s. 20 : Tanner v. Smart (a); Hyleing v. Hastings (b); Spong v. Wright (c); Francis v. Hawkesly (d); Buckmaster v. Russell (e); Cockerel' v. Sparkes (f); Thompson v. Waithman (g); Mills v. Fowkes (h); Tippets v. Heane (i). Sergeant Sullivan, Mr. Carleton, and Mr. Made, in support of the Master's order, argued that the notice contained a promise and undertaking to pay the costs when taxed : Philips v. PhiÂlips (h); Smith v. Thorne (1); Everett v. Robertson (m); Hayden v. Williams (n); Holmes v. Smith (o); Sidwell v. Mason (p) ; Waters v. The Earl of Thanet (q); Williamson v. Naylor (r); Hill v. Walker (s) ; Smith v. Poole (t) ; Collis v. Stack (u) ; Hart v. Prendergast (v) ; Maunsell v. Hodges (w). That the acknowledgment was subsequent to the Mercantile Amendment Act, and therefore came within the express words of the 13th section of that Act ; that, in reference to the 16 & 17 Vic., c. 163, (a) 6 B. & Cr. 603. (b) 1 Lord Ray. 389; S. C., 1 Salk. 29. (c) 9 M. & W. 629. (d) 1 Ell. & Ell. 1052. (e) 10 C. B., N. S., 745, (f) 3 Fos. & Fin. 150; S. C., 32 Law Jour., Exch., 118. (g) 3 Dr. 628. (h) 5 Bing. N. C. 455. (i) 4 Tyrwh. 775. (k) 3 Hare, 299. (1) 18 Q. B. 134. (m) 1 Ell. & Ell. 16. (n) 7 Bing. 163. (o) 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 461; S. C., 8 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 424. (p) 26 Law Jour., Exch., 407 ; S. C., 2 H. & N. 306. (q) 2 Q. B. 757. (r) 3 Y. & W., Exch., 208. (s) 4 K. & J. 166. (t) 10 Sim. 17; S. C., 10 Law Jour., N. S., Ch., 192. (u) 1 H. & N. 605. (v) 14 M. & W. 741. (w) 2 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 88. CHANCERY REPORTS. 269 ss. 24 and 27, an acknowledgement by an agent of the party chargeable thereby, duly authorised to make such acknowledgment or provision, shall have the same effect as if such writing had been signed by such party himself.* The MASTER OF THE...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Wall v Walsh
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 5 July 1869
    ...Fortescue v. M'Kone 1 Jebb & Symes, 341. Maloney v, O'BrienUNK 5 Ir. L. R. 577. Jackson v. WoolleyENR 8 E. & B. 784. Archer v. Leoard 15 Ir. Ch. R. 267. Ruckley v. KiernanUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 75. Woodyear v. GreshemENR Skin. 682. Fenner v. EvansENR 1 T. R. 267. Winter v. KretchmanENR 2 T. R. ......
  • Rowan and Company v Reilly
    • Ireland
    • Circuit Court
    • 1 January 1940
    ...the statute. Nor is a promise to pay subject to a condition which was in fact never fulfilled sufficient to do so. Archer v. Leonard, 15 Ir. Ch. R. 267, and Spencer v. Hemmerde [1922] 2 A. C. 507, distinguished. ...

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