Acknowledgment of mortgage liability can extend limitation where the written letter discloses a subsisting jural relationship.

An acknowledgment under section 19 of the Limitation Act need not contain an express promise to pay, but it must be in writing, signed before expiry of limitation, and must disclose a present subsisting liability together with a jural relationship between the parties. The document is construed as a whole in context, and surrounding circumstances may be considered, though oral evidence of its contents is excluded. On that approach, the letter was treated as an acknowledgment of the existing mortgage liability rather than a reference to some unrelated interest, and it was sufficient to extend limitation for the mortgage claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the letter dated 5 March 1932 amounted to a valid acknowledgment of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act so as to extend limitation for the mortgage claim.

Analysis: An acknowledgment under section 19 need not contain an express promise to pay, but it must be in writing, signed before expiry of limitation, and must disclose a present subsisting liability and the existence of a jural relationship between the parties. The document must be construed as a whole in its context, and surrounding circumstances may be considered, though oral evidence of its contents is excluded. Reading the letter against the earlier transaction and the parties' mortgage relationship, the reference to the addressee being interested in the property and the request to take up the whole was held to be an appeal to a puisne mortgagee to protect his mortgage interest by preventing sale, not a reference to some unrelated interest as purchaser or lessee.

Conclusion: The letter constituted a clear acknowledgment of the subsisting mortgage liability and was sufficient under section 19 of the Limitation Act.

---