Ann Dalton v The Midland Counties Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 1853 |
| Date | 22 April 1853 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 1284.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 1 C. L. R. 102; 22 L. J. C./ P. 177; 1 W. R. 308. See, Fleet v. Perrins 1868-69, L. R. 3 Q. B. 342; L. R. 4 Q. B. 500. See New Married Women's Property Act, 1882, s. I.
[474] ann Dalton v. the midland counties railway company. : : April 22, 1853. . [S. C. 1 G. L. B. 102; 22 L, J. C. P. 177 ;1 W. R:. 308. See, Fleet v. Perrins, 1868-69, L. E. 3 Q. B. 342 ; L. E. 4 Q. B. 500. See New Married Women's . Property Act, 1882, s. l.J The plaintiff, a married woman, bought, with moneys earned by her partly before and partly during coverture, railway stock, in her own name, and was registered as the proprietor thereof:-Held, that, inasmuch as she might be joined with her husband in an action against the company for dividends due upon the stock, she might (subject to be met by a plea in abatement) tnaintain-an action for the same in her own name. . ' This was an action of debt for dividends alleged to be payable to the plaintiff as the owner and proprietor of 4001. stock in the Midland Counties Eailway Company. Plea,-never indebted. ....... .....' ; . The cause was tried before Jervis, C. J., at the sittings at Westminster after last Michaelmas Term. It appeared, that, in April, 1850, the .plaintiff employed a broker to purchase for her 4001.,stock, in. the above company ;,;that the broker accordingly obtained for her a transfer of. that amount of stock irom one jDelisser, which transfer, dated the 30th of. that month,, and in which the plaintiff was described as "Ann Dalton, widow," was duly registered by the: secretary,of the. .company, and a certificate of registration, dated the 6th June,. 1850,,given to her by; the secretary; that, in August in that year, she received JOl. for a half-year's, dividend upon the stock; but that, upon application for a subsequent dividend, she was ;informed that there was no such stock standing in her name,-the .stock having, in fact, been transferred to another person, by means of a deed which the jury found to have been forged. Upon the examination of the plaintiff, it turned put that .she was a married woman, that she was not/separated from her husband, but that, he had. been abroad many years, and had not been heard of for sometime. Thfestock in question had been purchased with money which had been accumulated by itjie plaintiff, in service, partly before her marriage and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v Cody
...L. R. 8 Q. B. 504. Bone v. PollardENR 24 Beav. 283. Hoys v. Kindersly 2 Sm. & Gif. 195. Dalton v. The Midland Railway CompanyENR 13 C. B. 474. Meek v. KettlewellENR 1 Hare, 471. Mulvy v. RobbUNK 4 D. F. & J. 264. Warriner v. RogersELR L. R. 16 Eq. 340. Philliskirk v. Pluckwell 2 M. & Sel. 3......
-
Rand Ropes (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue
...See In re Severn and Wye & Severn Bridge Railway Co. (1896, 1 Ch. 559 at pp. 564-6) Ann Dalton v Midland Counties Railway. Co. (138 E.R. 1284). Compare Bond v Barrow Haematite Steel Co. (1902, 1 Ch. D. 353 at p. 362); In re Accrington Corp. Steam Tramways Co. (1909, 92 Ch. D. 40 at p. 47); ......