aw Journal Reports (N.

Debtor and Creditor-Lord Tenterden's Act, 9 Geo. 4. c. 14—Signature—Acknowledgment.

In 1846 L. gave B. and S. a promissory note for 500l. The note was made payable three months after date to "D. F. B. or S. M., his wife." In 1866, after the death of B., and on the application of S. M., L. wrote his name, and the date 1866, on the back of the note :-Held, a sufficient acknowledgment within the above statute; and that the debt, therefore, was not barred.

This was a creditors' suit, instituted for the administration of the estate of the Rev. William Henry Langley.

On the 6th of January, 1846, Mr. Langley borrowed from M. Bourdin, the father of the plaintiff, 500l., and gave him a promissory note, made payable three months after date, "to Dominic Francois Bourdin, or Sarah Matilda, his wife, for value received." No payment was made on account of the note. M. Bourdin died in 1863, and his wife thereby became the surviving payee of the note. She was also his executrix. In 1866 she applied to Mr. Langley for (as it was presumed) payment of the note; when he (as it was alleged) altered the date on the face of the note from 1846 to 1866, and endorsed the note "W. H. Langley, 1866." Madame Bourdin died in 1868, leaving her son, the plaintiff, her executor. Mr. Langley died in 1869, leaving the defendant his executor.

Be

There was some correspondence between the parties interested in the question; but it was held to be inadmissible. yond the above facts Mr. Langley had done nothing to take the debt due from him out of the statutes.

The question was whether his signature endorsed on the note was a sufficient acknowledgment, under Lord Tenterden's Act, 9 Geo. 4. c. 14, to prevent the debt from being barred by the statutes?

Mr. Karslake and Mr. Cutler for the plaintiff. This signature is a sufficient NEW SERIES, 41.-CHANC.

acknowledgment of the debt, within Lord Tenterden's Act. The date speaks for itself; and although there is no new signature on the face of the bill, you have, in so many words, the promise of the debtor to pay the debt; and it is not the less his promise, because made by merely putting his name on the back of the old document, instead of re-writing it—

Darby and Bosanquet on the Statutes
of Limitations, 48 and 49;
9 Geo. 4. c. 14. s. 1.

Jones v. Ryder, 4 Mee. & W. 32; s. c. 7 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Exch. 216; is distinguishable from the present caseCheslyn v. Dalby, 4 You. & C. Exch.

Eq. 238; s. c. 10 Law J. Rep.
(N.S.) Exch. Eq. 21;
Blankenhagen v. Blundell, 2 B. &
Ald. 417;

Hart v. Prendergast, 14 Mee. & W.
741; s. c. 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.)
Exch. 223.

We

Mr. Hemings (Mr. Dickinson with him), for the defendants.-This signature is not sufficient, and the debt is barred. The mere signature alone will not make the document-which without it was waste paper-either an acknowledgment within the statute, or a promissory note. say it is no acknowledgment: but a new promissory note. As such, however, it is not stamped, and cannot be sued uponJones v. Ryder (ubi supra); Rackham v. Marriott, 1 Hurl. & N. 234; s. o. 25 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Exch. 324; affirmed in Exch. Ch. 26 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Exch. 315; Holmes v. Jaques, 35 Law J. Rep.

(N.S.) Q.B. 130; s. c. Law Rep. 1 Q.B. 377; Hamelin v. Bruck, 9 Q.B. Rep. 306; s. c. 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 343.

Mr. Karslake in reply. This document, if it is a promissory note, does not require a stamp or if it does, one can easily be affixed. But it is really a sufficient acknowledgment and not a note. It must

:

be presumed that Mr. Langley put his name on it, for some purpose; and what that could be but to acknowledge, and so keep alive the debt, is inconceivable

Ex parte Yates, 2 De Gex & J. 191; s.c. 27 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Bankr. 9.

L