Limitation Act 1623

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Limitation Act 1623[1]
Act of Parliament
Parliament of England
Long titleAn Acte for lymytacion of Accions, and for avoyding of Suites in Lawe.
Citation21 Jas. 1. c. 16
Dates
Royal assent29 May 1624
Other legislation
Repealed byStatute Law (Repeals) Act 1986
Status: Repealed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The whole Act was repealed by section 1(1) of, and Group 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986.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[edit]

These sections were repealed by section 1 of, and the Schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.[2]

Section 3[edit]

Amendments[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

General application[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

References[edit]

  • Joseph Chitty. A Collection of Statutes of Practical Utility. First Edition. William Benning. 1829. Volume 1. Part 2. Pages 700 to 705.
  • Welsby and Beavan. Chitty's Collection of Statutes. Second Edition. 1853. Volume 3. Pages 57 to 62.
  • Lely. "Statute of Limitations, 1623". Chitty's Collection of Statutes of Practical Utility. Fourth Edition. 1880. Volume 4. Pages 85 to 92.
  • Lely. "The Limitation Act, 1623". The Statutes of Practical Utility. (Chitty's Statutes). Fifth Edition. 1895. Volume 6. Title "Limitation of Actions". Pages 3 to 9.
  • "The Limitation Act, 1623". Halsbury's Statutes of England. (The Complete Statutes of England). Butterworth & Company (Publishers) Limited. 1929. Volume 10. Page 429 to 432. See also the preliminary note at pages 426 to 428. See also pages 439, 440, 453, 456 to 460, 462 to 464, 471 and passim.
  • Henry Thomas Banning. A Concise Treatise on the Statute Law of the Limitation of Actions. Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 32 (which relate to the limitation of actions in simple contract and in tort under the Limitation Act 1623) and pages 3 and 79. See also passim.
  • Joseph Kinnicut Angell. A Treatise on the Limitations of Actions at Law and Suits in Equity.  1829. Pages vi, xix, xx, xxiii, xxv, 20, 25, 41, 45, 46, 48, 54, 58, 66, 68, 146, 162, 190, 197, 211, 215, 216, 218, 219, 226, 250, 291, 292, 296, 299, 300, 306, 308, 326, 331, 332, 340, 344, 346, 361, 367 and 381.
  • John Mason Lightwood. "Actions in Contract and Tort". The Time Limit on Actions: Being a Treatise on the Statute of Limitations and the Equitable Doctrine of Laches. Butterworth. 1909. Google. Chapter 4. Pages 191 to 250. See also passim.
  • George Barclay Mansel. "Personal Actions". A Treatise on the Law of Limitation. S Sweet. 1839. Chapter 3. Pages 22 to 35. See also pages 3, 45, 93, 96, 97, 105 to 108, 112, 113, 117, 127, 183 and 190.
  • Halsbury's Laws of England. First Edition. 1911. Volume 19. Pages 14, 37 to 42, 54 to 56, 58, 59, 67, 77 to 80, 82 to 84, 87, 88, 95, 97, 100, 105 to 107, 130, 138, 155, 157, 162, 165, 166, 168 to 172, 174, 175, 178, 182, 185, 186, 188, 192 and 393.
  • "Sect 2 - The Limitation Act, 1623". Halsbury's Laws of England. Second Edition. Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd. 1936. Volume 20. Paragraph 749 et seq at page 597 et seq. See generally, pages 567, 595 to 603, 621, 622, 624, 625, 636, 646, 648 to 651, 654, 655, 657, 660 to 662, 670, 672, 673, 716, 717, 720, 740, 750, 759, 761, 762, 767 to 769, 771, 772, 780, 781 and 787.
  • The Laws of England. (Halsbury's Laws of England). Third Edition. Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd. 1952. Volume 24. Pages 177, 188, 199, 210, 291 to 293, 304, 308 and 309.
  • Rowland Jay Browne. "Sect 6 - Personal Actions" in "Limitation of Actions". A Practical Treatise on Actions at Law. Henry Butterworth. 1843. Pages 59 to 93. See also pages 30, 31, 34, 57, 571 and 577.
  • "Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations" (1950) 63 Harvard Law Review 1177
  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, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limitation_Act_1623&oldid=1184742908"