Barber v Houston

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date16 May 1885
Date16 May 1885
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)

Appeal.

Before PORTER, M. R., and FITZGIBBON and BARRY, L. JJ. SIR EDWARD SULLIVAN, C.

BARBER
and

HOUSTON

Trevelyan v. Charter 4 L. J. Ch. (N. S. ) 214.

Brooksbank v . Smith 2 Yo. & Coll. (Exch. ) 68.

Brown v. Howard 2 Brod. & B. 73. 75.

Cridland v. Lord de MauleyENR 1 De G. & Sm. 459.

The Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron 5 Exch. Div. 309.

Barry v. CrosskeyENR 2 Johns. & Hem. 1.

Slim v. Croucher 1 D. F. & Jo. 518.

Bray v. Tofield 18 Ch. Div. 551, 554.

Hunter v. GibbonsENR 1 H. & N. 459.

The Imperial Gaslight and Coke Co. v. The London Gaslight Co.ENR 10 Exch. 39.

Booth v. Lord Warrington 4 Br. P. C. 163.

Gibbs v. GuildELR 9 Q. B. Div. 59.

Deane v. ThuaiteENR 21 Beav. 621.

Gibbs v. GuildELR 9 Q. B. Div. 59.

VoL. XVIII.] Q. B., C. P.r& EX. DIVISIONS. 475 BARBER v. HOUSTON (1). Appeal. 1885. Limitations, Statute of-Reply of fraud, and absence of reasonable means Of Feb. 16, 17. discovery-Concealment of fraud-Pleading-Conflicting rules of kw and May 16. sub-sect. equity-Irish Judicature Act, sect. 28 h 11. In an action to recover damages for fraudulent representation of the quality (viz.. the " sheep-carrying power ") of certain lands, whereby the plaintiff was induced to take leases thereof, the defendants pleaded the Statute of LimitaÂtions. Reply : That the cause of action relied on is the fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation of the defendants, and the injuries occasioned to the plaintiff thereby; and the plaintiff says that he did not, and could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered the said fraud, or that the said repreÂsentation was untrue and fraudulent, until within six years before the comÂmencement of this action : Held, on demurrer (affirming the decision of the Exchequer Division), that the reply was no answer to the plea relying on the statute. Gibbs v. Guild (9 Q. B. Div. 59) commented on and distinguished. Per Porter, M.R.-The action was nothing more than one for deeeit,which, before the Judicature Act, must have been brought in a Court of Common Law, and would have been barred after six years, under sect. 20 of the Irish ComÂmon Law Procedure Act, 1853, which section the enactment in the Judicature Act (sect. 28, sub-sect. 11), providing that, in cases of conflict, the rules of equity should prevail, had not the effect of repealing, either expressly or by implication; but in the case of rights and remedies, to which equitable rules are applicable, aid to which the Statutes of Limitations do not directly apply, the rules of equity will now be enforced, even in the Common Law Divisions. APPEALS by the plaintiff from two orders of the Exchequer Division, of the 16th June, 1884, allowing the defendants' deÂmurrer to the reply, and entering a verdict for them on a new trial motion. The action was brought to recover damages for alleged breach of warranty by the defendant Houston, and fraudulent representaÂtion by the defendant Rooper, to the effect that a large tract of (1) Before.PORTZ11, M.R., and Frrz- sent during the argument, but died on GIBBON and. Bear, L. JJ. &a the 13th April, 1885, before the judg EDWARD SULLIVAN, C., was also pre- went was delivered. 476 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Appeal. mountainous country, about ninty-six miles square, of which the 1885. plaintiff took leases in 1876 from the defendant Houston, would BARBER feed 16,000 sheep. The jury found in favour of the defendant HorsTox. Houston, and against the defendant Rooper, and their verdict as to the former was not objected to. On a new trial motion by the defendant Rooper the Divisional Court gave leave to join issue and to demur, in order to raise the question involved in a more convenient form. The material pleadings, and the demurrer, and its points, are fully set out in the report of the case below : 14 L. R. Ir. 273. The demurrer was now argued first, and the new trial motion immediately afterwards. The Mae Dermot, Q. C., and John G. Gibson, Q. C. (with them F. N. Le Poer Trench), for the appellant. The Solicitor-General (Samuel Walker, Q.C.), and Monroe, Q.C. (with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Criminal Assets Bureau v Marlene Walsh
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 Julio 2021
    ...1957 Act. It has its origin in equity and became part of general law in Ireland in 1877: see Barber v. Houston [1884] 14 L.R Ir. 273; [1885] 18 L.R. Ir. 475 and the comments of Lord Denning M.R. in Eddis and Another v. Chichester Constable and Others [1969] 3 W.L.R. 48 at p. 19 Section 71 ......

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