Limitation Act 1623

Last updated

Limitation Act 1623 [1]
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg
Parliament of England
Long title An Acte for lymytacion of Accions, and for avoyding of Suites in Lawe.
Citation 21 Jas. 1. c. 16
Dates
Royal assent 29 May 1624
Other legislation
Amended by
Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986
Status: Repealed

The Limitation Act 1623 (21 Jas. 1. c. 16), sometimes called the Statute of Limitations 1623, was an Act of the Parliament of England.

Contents

The whole Act was repealed by section 1(1) of, and Group 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986.

Sections 1 and 2

These sections were repealed by section 1 of, and the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1863. [2]

Section 3

Amendments

The Limitation Act 1623 was amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1705 (4 & 5 Ann. c. 3), the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4. c. 14) and the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97). [3]

Period of limitation

By 1911, the period of limitation for most actions of tort and for all actions arising out of simple contract was six years from the accrual of the cause of action. [4] [5]

Actions to which the Limitation Act 1623 applied

General application

The Limitation Act 1623 [6] applied to all actions to all actions arising out of simple contracts and to all actions of tort at common law [7] except those actions for which there was a special period of limitation provided. [8] [9]

Particular instances of simple contract debts

The Limitation Act 1623 [10] also applied to the personal remedy on a simple contract debt which was charged on land, where there was no convenient way to pay; [11] to a simple contract debt which was recited in a deed, unless there was in the deed an express or implied contract to pay it; [12] to a warrant of attorney to confess judgment for the amount of a simple contract debt; [13] to an action for mesne profits; [14] to an action against the equitable assignee of leaseholds in possession, grounded on his liability to perform the covenants in the lease; [15] to a set-off or counterclaim; [16] to an action founded on a foreign judgment; [17] and to an Admiralty action for seamen's wages. [18]

Actions given by statute

An action which a statute expressly enabled to be brought, but which was not an action for a statutory debt, was within [19] the Limitation Act 1623. Thus, an action against a director of a company under section 84 [20] of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7. c. 69) and the action referred to in section 26 [21] of the Copyhold Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 46) were, it seems, within the Limitation Act 1623, as was also a claim for indemnity under section 26 of the Land Transfer Act 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65) [22] [23]

The Limitation Act 1623 applied to a claim against an executor personally founded on a devastavit [24] and to proceedings to enforce the statutory right which simple contract creditors had [25] against the real estate of their deceased debtors. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

A guarantee is a form of transaction in which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, agrees to be answerable for them. It may also designate a treaty through which claims, rights or possessions are secured. It is to be differentiated from the colloquial "personal guarantee" in that a guarantee is a legal concept which produces an economic effect. A personal guarantee, by contrast, is often used to refer to a promise made by an individual which is supported by, or assured through, the word of the individual. In the same way, a guarantee produces a legal effect wherein one party affirms the promise of another by promising to themselves pay if default occurs.

The Mutiny Acts were an almost 200-year series of annual Acts passed by the Parliament of England, the Parliament of Great Britain, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom for governing, regulating, provisioning, and funding the English and later British Army.

An Appropriation Act is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which, like a Consolidated Fund Act, allows the Treasury to issue funds out of the Consolidated Fund. Unlike a Consolidated Fund Act, an Appropriation Act also "appropriates" the funds, that is allocates the funds issued out of the Consolidated Fund to individual government departments and Crown bodies. Appropriation Acts were formerly passed by the Parliament of Great Britain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landlord and Tenant Act 1730</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that regulates certain aspects of the relationship between tenants and their landlords.

Statute Law Revision Act is a stock short title which has been used in Antigua, Australia, Barbados, Bermuda, Canada, Ghana, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa and the United Kingdom, for Acts with the purpose of statute law revision. Such Acts normally repealed legislation which was expired, spent, repealed in general terms, virtually repealed, superseded, obsolete or unnecessary. In the United Kingdom, Statute Law (Repeals) Acts are now passed instead. "Statute Law Revision Acts" may collectively refer to enactments with this short title.

The Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster was a court of chancery that exercised jurisdiction within the County Palatine of Lancaster until it was merged with the High Court and abolished in 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828</span> United Kingdom legislation

Bold

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piracy Act 1850</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Piracy Act 1850, sometimes called the Pirates Repeal Act 1850, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It relates to proceedings for the condemnation of ships and other things taken from pirates and creates an offence of perjury in such proceedings.

The Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham and Sadberge was a court of chancery that exercised jurisdiction within the County Palatine of Durham until it was merged into the High Court in 1972.

The Liverpool Court of Passage was, at the time of its abolition, a local court of record which actively exercised a civil jurisdiction comparable to or greater than that of the county court for the district in which it was situated.

A revised edition of the statutes is an edition of the Revised Statutes in the United Kingdom. These editions are published by authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute Law Revision Act 1893</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Statute Law Revision Act 1893 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Cotton said this Act is the twenty-second Statute Law Revision Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act 1881</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act 1881 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repealed for England and Wales statutes relating to civil procedure from 1235 to 1880 which had ceased to be in force or had become necessary. The act was intended, in particular, to facilitate the preparation of the revised edition of the statutes, then in progress.

The Court of Pleas of the County Palatine of Durham and Sadberge, sometimes called the Court of Pleas or Common Pleas of or at Durham was a court of common pleas that exercised jurisdiction within the County Palatine of Durham until its jurisdiction was transferred to the High Court by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. Before the transfer of its jurisdiction, this tribunal was next in importance to the Chancery of Durham. The Court of Pleas probably developed from the free court of the Bishop of Durham. The Court of Pleas was clearly visible as a distinct court, separate from the Chancery, in the thirteenth century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metropolitan Police (Receiver) Act 1861</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Metropolitan Police (Receiver) Act 1861 or the Metropolitan Police Receiver's Act 1861, sometimes called the Metropolitan Police District Receiver Act, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This act has, in addition to its other short titles, been given the short title the Metropolitan Police Act 1861, but that short title has also been given to the act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 51. The Metropolitan Police (Receiver) Act 1861 is one of the Metropolitan Police Acts 1829 to 1895.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abolition of High Commission Court Act 1640</span> United Kingdom legislation

The act 16 Cha. 1. c. 11, sometimes referred to as the Ecclesiastical Causes Act 1640, the Abolition of High Commission Court Act 1640, the High Commission Abolition Act 1641, the Abolition of the Court of High Commission Act, the High Commission Court Abolition Act, the Act for the Abolition of the High Commission, the Act for the Abolition of the High Commission Court, or the Act for the Abolition of the Court of High Commission, was an Act of the Parliament of England, passed by the Long Parliament. It abolished the Court of High Commission and repealed the clause in the Act of Supremacy 1558 that gave the Court legal authority. Horder said the Act 16 Cha. 1. c. 11 is "important". It is a precursor to the Self-Incrimination Clause which is included in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Short Titles Act 1896. Due to the repeal of those provisions, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  2. ↑ Public General Statutes
  3. ↑ Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 37, footnote a to para 50.
  4. ↑ Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 37, para 51.
  5. ↑ The Limitation Act 1623, section 3; the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 (19 & 20 Vict c 97), section 9. Actions of accounts relating to trade between merchant and merchant were excluded from the Limitation Act 1623; see Robinson v Alexander (1834) 2 Cl & Fin 717, HL, but the limitation of six years was applied to them by the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, section 9; see Friend v Young [1897] 2 Ch 421 at 431. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, footnote e to para 51 at pp 37 and 38.
  6. ↑ The Limitation Act 1623, section 3. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 38, footnote l to para 55.
  7. ↑ The Limitation Act 1623, was formerly limited to actions at common law, but was, by 1911, applicable to actions in any division of the High Court. The Limitation Act 1623 mentioned certain particular forms of action, namely, all actions of trespass quare clausum fregit, all actions of trespass, detinue, trover and replevin for taking away goods and cattle; of account and upon the case, other than accounts between merchant and merchant, their factors and servants; of debt grounded upon any lending on contract without specialty; of debt for arrears of rents, and all actions of assault, menace, battery, wounding or imprisonment. Assumpsit (action founded on contract other than an action of debt) was not specifically mentioned, but was held to be within the statute: see Chandler v Vilett (1670) 2 Wms Saund (1871 Ed) 391. As to trover, see Swayn v Stephens (1632) Cro Car 245. By 1911, forms of action were abolished (see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 1, p 45), but the Limitation Act 1623 still applied to the circumstances which constituted the actions named in it, although the actions were no longer called by the same names: see Gibbs v Guild (1882) 9 QBD 59 at 67, CA. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, footnote q to para 55 at pp 38 and 39.
  8. ↑ Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, para 55 at pp 38 & 39.
  9. ↑ For actions for which a special period of limitation provided, see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 176
  10. ↑ The Limitation Act 1623, section 3. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote s to para 56.
  11. ↑ Firth v Slingsby (1888) 58 LT 481; Barnes v Glenton [1899] 1 QB 885, CA. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote t to para 56.
  12. ↑ Iven v Elwes (1854) 3 Drew 25. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote u to para 56.
  13. ↑ Clarke v Figes (1817) 2 Stark 234; see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 18, p 190. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote x to para 56.
  14. ↑ Buller, Law of Nisi Prius, p 88; Adams, Action of Ejectment, 4th Ed, 393; Reade v Reade (1801) 5 Ves 744. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote y to para 56.
  15. ↑ Sanders v Benson (1841) 4 Beav 350. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote a to para 56.
  16. ↑ The Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4. c. 14), section 4; RSC Ord 19, rule 3; Remington v Stevens (1748) 2 Stra 1271; Rawley v Rawley (1876) 1 QBD 460, CA; see Dingle v Coppen, Coppen v Dingle [1899] 1 Ch 726; Smith v Betty [1903] 2 KB 317 at 323, CA. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote b to para 56.
  17. ↑ Dupleix v De Roven (1706) 2 Vern 540; see Wilson v Dunsany (Lady) (1854) 18 Beav 293; disapproved on another point, Re Kloebe, Kannreuther v Geiselbrecht (1884) 28 Ch D 175; Reimer v Druce (1857) 23 Beav 145; and see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 18, p 219. As to an action on an English judgment, see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 85. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote c to para 56.
  18. ↑ The Administration of Justice Act 1705 (4 & 5 Anne c 3), section 17. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote d to para 56.
  19. ↑ Cork and Bandon Rail Co v Goode (1853) 13 CB 826 at 835, per Maule J; see also Salford County Borough Corporation v Lancashire County Council (1890) 25 QBD 384, CA (expenses of local authority); Re Newbegin's Estate, Eggleton v Newbegin (1887) 36 Ch D 477; Re Watson, Stamford Union v Bartlett [1899] 1 Ch 72; Re Clabbon, an Infant [1904] 2 Ch 465 (maintenance of pauper lunatic); Tobbaco Pipe Makers' Co v Loder (1851) 16 QBD 765 (penalty under bye-law of chartered company). An action for a statutory debt was an action on a specialty. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote e to para 57.
  20. ↑ Thomson v Clanmorris (Lord) [1900] 1 Ch 718, CA; see also Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 5, p 136 et seq. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote h to para 57.
  21. ↑ See Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 8, p 122.
  22. ↑ The Land Transfer Act 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 65), section 7(7). Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 39, footnote k to para 57.
  23. ↑ Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, para 57 at pp 39 & 40.
  24. ↑ See Re Croydon (1908) 125 LT Jo 282; and the cases cited in Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 14, p 317; and see generally pp 317 & 318 of vol 14; and compare vol 14, p 265. At common law the remedy for a devastavit was an action of trespass; see Thorne v Kerr (1855) 2 K & J 54 at 63. As to the effect of section 8 of the Trustee Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c/ 59), see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, pp 161 & 162. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 40, footnote m to para 58.
  25. ↑ See Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 14, p 246.
  26. ↑ Fordham v Wallis (1853) 10 Hare 217. As to marshalling of assets before the Administration of Estates Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 100), see Fordham v Wallis, supra. If a testator by his will charged his real estate with his simple contract debts, then the period of limitation was twelve years; see Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 82; Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, vol 14, p 254. Halsbury's Laws of England, 1st Ed, 1911, vol 19, p 40, footnote o to para 58.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.