« AnteriorContinuar »
Midland Counties Railway Company,
Office of;-See SuppING, I, 2. 474.
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
III, Separation Deed procured by
I. Liability of Husband for Neces-
Fraud on the Part of the Trustee.
saries supplied to the Wife.
1. In covenant upon a separation.
In an action for goods supplied to a
deed, by which B., the husband, core-
married woman, the proper question to
nanted to pay to A., as trustee for the
leave to the jury is, not simply whether wife, certain quarterly payments,—B.
the goods were necessaries suitable to pleaded, that he was induced to make
the station in life of the party, but
the indenture, and to covenant as in the
whether, upon the facts proved, the
declaration mentioned, through and by
wife had authority, express or implied, misrepresentations of A. by him made
means of certain false and fraudulent
Reid v. Teakle, 627.
to B.,—that is to say, by A., before and
at the time of the making of the inden-
II, Wife's Right to Separate Estate. ture by B., falsely and fraudulently
1. A married woman deposited with representing that E., the wife of B.,
the defendant the savings of certain was a virtuous and moral person, and
rents of leasehold property which had, that he, A., was a virtuous and moral
on her marriage, been conveyed by her person, and fit to be trustee for her for
with the consent of the intended hus the purposes of the indenture, whereas
band, to trustees, upon trust to pay or in truth E. was not, nor was A., a
permit her to receive the rents &c. to virtuous and moral person, &c.; that
her sole and separate use :-Held, that, A. had then treacherously, &c., seduced
the trust being discharged on the rents the said E., so then being the wife of A.,
coming to the wife's hands, the trustees and subsequently to the marriage, -
ceased to have any interest in or control which last-mentioned facts A. before
over them; and that, upon the wife's and at the time of the making of the
death, her husband was entitled to bring indenture suppressed and concealed
an action, in his own right, to recover from B. ; that A. so fraudulently pro-
the money so deposited. Bird v. cured B. to make the indenture, in
order that he, A., might seduce away
2. The plaintiff, a married woman, the said E, from B., and might harbour
bought, with moneys earned by her and have access to her for the purpose
partly before and partly during cover of continuing the adulterous inter-
ture, railway stock, in her own name, course; and that B. was induced to
and was registered as the proprietor make the indenture in the declaration
thereof:-Held, that, inasmuch as she mentioned, and to covenant as therein
might be joined with her husband in alleged, through and by means of the
an action against the company for divi said false and fraudulent misrepresen.
dends due upon the stock, she might tations of the plaintiff, and by reason
(subject to be met by a plea in abate of the suppression and concealment as
ment) maintain an action for the same aforesaid of the premises so suppressed
in her own name. Dalton v. The and concealed as in the plea mentioned,
and in ignorance thereof, and not
See CASE, III.
The jury having found this plea
proved,- Held, on motion for judgment
non obstante veredicto, that the plea See HUSBAND AND WIFE, III.
sufficiently shewed the deed to be so
tainted with fraud as to be incapable of
being enforced in a court of law; and Annuity payable out of a Fund in
that the plea might be sustained as a
general plea of fraud, notwithstanding The Bengal Civil Service Annuity
the absence of a direct averment that Fund, is a fund formed in India, under
A. knew, at the time he seduced E., the sanction of the East India Com-
that she was the wife of B.
pany, by the subscriptions of their civil
servants upon the Bengal establish-
2. And, held, that it was no answer ment, augmented by contributions
to this defence, that the plaintiff was from the company; and a civil servant
suing as a trustee, whose cestui qui who has regularly subscribed to the
trust was not shewn to have been party fund, and retires after the regular
to the fraud alleged on the record. Ib. period of service, becomes entitled to
3. And, semble (per Maule, J.), that receive thereout an annuity of 10,000
it made no difference whether A. falsely rupees. The fund is invested in India,
asserted to be true that which he knew and managed there by a committee of
to be false, or merely asserted that to nine, four of whom are officially con-
be true of the truth or falsehood of nected with the government.
which he had no knowledge. Ib. By an arrangement with the com-
IV. Slander of.
pany, the annuitants have the option
Publication.]-Addressing a letter
of receiving their annuity in India,
to a wife, containing matter reflecting
from the managers of the fund, or of
on her husband, is a publication,
being paid at the East India House in
Wenman v. Ash, 836.
London, at the rate of 2s. per sicca
rupee,—the company being in that case
provided out of the fund with moneys
Liability of Steward.
for the purpose of making the pay-
One who gratuitously accepts the
office of steward of a horse-race, is not The plaintiff, a retired civil servant,
responsible for a loss resulting to one
entitled to a pension of 10001. a year,
who enters a horse for the race, from whose permanent residence was in
his mere nonfeasance in omitting to France, elected to receive his annuity
appoint a judge.---at all events, unless
in London :-
it appears that he has actually entered Held, that the annuity was not sub-
upon the duties of the office. Balfe v. ject to income-tax, under the 5 & 6
Vict. c. 35, not being payable out of
any fund in England; and that he
might maintain an action for money
See SHIPPING, II.
had and received against the company
to recover sums deducted and retained
by them in respect of such tax, and
paid over to the commissioners. Udney
v. The East India Company, 733.
See HABEAS CORPUS.
JI. Effect of Adjustment.
To a declaration on a policy of assur-
ance, alleging a partial loss, the defend-
ant pleaded, that, before action brought,
the proportional sum which the defend.
ant was liable to pay, was by agreement
settled and adjusted at a certain rate;
that the amount payable by the defend-
ant in respect of the loss was thereby
liquidated and ascertained to be a cer-
tain sum ; and that, at the commence-
ment of the suit, the plaintiff was, and
still remained, indebted to the defend-
ant in an amount exceeding the amount
so ascertained for premiums of assur-
ance upon policies before effected by
the plaintiff with the defendant, which
amount the defendant was willing to
set off against the amount 80 settled
and ascertained as aforesaid :
Held, bad on demurrer,—the action
being, notwithstanding the adjustment,
an action for unliquidated damages.
Luckie v. Bushby, 864.
I. Insurable Interest.
Advances for Repairs and Disburse-
ments.]-A vessel having put into a
foreign port in a damaged state, the
master borrowed money of a merchant
there, for necessary repairs and dis-
bursements; to secure which, he drew
bills upon his owner, and also executed
an instrument which purported to be an
hypothecation of the ship, cargo, and
freight. By this instrument, the mer-
chant who advanced the money forbore
all interest beyond the amount neces-
sary to insure the ship to cover the
advances ; and the master took upon
himself and his owner the risk of the
voyage, making the money payable at
all events, and subjecting the ship to
seizure and sale by virtue of process
“out of Her Majesty's High Court of
Admiralty of England, or any Court of
Vice-Admiralty possessing jurisdiction
at the port at which the said vessel
might at any time happen to be lying,
or to be, according to the maritime law
and custom of England,” in the event
of the bills being refused acceptance, or
being dishonoured :-
Held, that, this not being such an
hypothecation as could be enforced in
the court of Admiralty,—the payment
of the money borrowed not being made
to depend upon the arrival of the
vessel, -the merchant had no insurable
interest in the ship. Stuinbank v.
1. The statute 8 Ann. c. 14, s. 1,
which prohibits the taking in execution
of goods without satisfying the land.
lord's claim for rent, does not apply
unless the goods are actually removed.
White v. Binstead, 304.
2. Under a fi. fa. against A., the
sheriff seized the goods of B. B.
claiming them, the sheriff obtained an
order under the interpleader act, and
C., the landlord, claimed 251. for a
quarter's rent. The goods were sold
under the order, and the amount, after
deducting the 251., was paid by the
sheriff into court. On the trial of the
issue, B. established his claim :-Held,
that, under the circumstances, the
sheriff was not justified in paying the For Payment of Money.
In trover by the plaintiffs as church-
wardens, to recover possession of a
book belonging to the parish, a verdict
was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to
To a declaration upon a judgment a special case. Upon the argument of
obtained in one of the superior courts the special case, the court directed a
in Ireland, against an incorporated nonsuit. The case was afterwards
company in England, the defendants turned into a special verdict, and, upon
pleaded,- that they were not served the argument, it was agreed “that the
with any summons or process issuing judgment of the court below should
out of the Irish court, in the action stand, and the select vestry be at an
in which the judgment was obtained, end; the costs of both sides to be paid
and that the plaintiff, irregularly, and out of the parish funds." This agree-
behind the backs of the defendants, ment was embodied in an order of
caused an appearance to be entered for Erle, J., which was afterwards made
the defendants in that action, and a rule of court.
thereby obtained the judgment, when Difficulties arising in carrying out
the defendants were not within the juris- this order, the court of error awarded
diction of the said court, and had not a venire de novo; and, upon the cause
been served with any summons or other again coming on for trial, an order of
process to appear to the action:-Held, nisi prius was drawn up, by consent,
that the plea was bad, inasmuch as it referring it to Williams, J., to deter-
did not distinctly allege that the de- mine the cause and all matters relating
fendants did not know of the summons to it, with power to direct in what
in the Irish court, or that they did not manner the order (and rule thereon) of
appear thereto. Sheehy v. The Pro- Erle, J., was to be carried into effect.
fessional Life-Assurance Company, 787. In August, 1852, Williams, J., made
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
See NOTICE OF ACTION.
I. Constructive Occupation.
In an action for use and occupation,
the undersheriff told the jury that "
Assignment of Licence,- See PLEAD-
constructive occupation ” was sufficient
to entitle the plaintiff to recover,-
without telling them what was a con-