THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

Press, Volume XVIII, Issue 2668, 18 November 1871, Page 3

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

The Economist eeys : —The Lords Justices in Chancery have decided—re the Eirer Steamer Company,Mitchell's claim. —that a claim of debt was not taken out of the Statute of Limitations by a correspondence in which the defendant? had eteadilf depied the debt while expressing their willingness

to refer matters in dispute to arbitration. To take a case out of the

Statutes it was laid down that there must be either (1.) An acknowledgment in making of the debt; (2) An absolute promise to pay; or (3). A conditional promise in writing to pay, with evidence that the condition had been performed. The

correspondence here di<l not contain such, a promise or aekuowled&jment, and although there was & conditional promise, yet the condition—viz., arbitration —had not been performed. Aβ

the point is of considerable business interest, we subjoin a copy of the chief letter written by the defendants relied on to take • the case out of the Statute, but which did not have that effect:—

" A paper has been received at this office, without letter or explanation of any kind, purporting to be ft memorandum of account between you and this company, which is altogether incorrect both in principle and detail, omitting all deductions and credits to which this company are entitled, and I which would leave the balance considerably in their favor. lam however authorised to cay that this company ure still willing, as they have all along been, to have all accounts and questions between you and them decided by arbitration according to your contract, and they again call upon you to concur with them in the necessary steps for that purpose. They long since named an arbitrator on their part, but they could not get you to do what was necessary on yours, and the reference was never therefore proceeded with. This of course is wholly without prejudice."