Limitation Act 1623 Explained

Short Title:Limitation Act 1623[1]
Type:Act
Parliament:Parliament of England
Long Title:An Acte for lymytacion of Accions, and for avoyding of Suites in Lawe.
Year:1623
Statute Book Chapter:21 Jas. 1. c. 16
Royal Assent:29 May 1624
Repealing Legislation: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Status:Repealed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.

The whole Act was repealed by section 1(1) of, and Group 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986.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These sections were repealed by section 1 of, and the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.[2]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

References

Notes and 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. https://books.google.com/books?id=TVUMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA688 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, foofnote 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 article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Limitation Act 1623".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.