Bolton v Prentice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 1136
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
bolton vers. prentice. A husband who turns away his wife without cause and refuseth to provide for her, cannot make a particular prohibition. Vide Salk. 118. Ld. Raym. 1006. In assumpsit for goods sold and delivered to the defendant's wife, the case appeared to be, that the defendant and his wife had formerly lodged at the plaintiffs house, and the plaintiff furnished her with goods; and the defendant finding the plaintiff had helped her to pawn her watch, and suspecting he confederated with her, left the lodgings, after paying the plaintiff his bill, and forbidding him ever trusting her again. After this defendant and his wife cohabited together for a year, when without any cause appearing he left her, locked up her cloaths, and upon her finding him out, refused to admit her, and struck her, and declared he would not maintain her, or pay any body that did. In this distress she borrowed cloaths of her friends, and applied to the plaintiff, who furnished her with necessaries according to the defendant's degree; which the defendant refusing to pay for, this action was brought; and upon trial the jury found for the plaintiff. Upon motion for a new trial, the Court held the verdict was right; for whilst they were at the plaintiffs there was a particular reason for the particular, prohibition ; yet the causeless turning her away destitute afterwards, gave her the general credit again : and if a husband should be allowed, under the notion of a particular prohibition, to destroy her obtaining credit in one place, he may in the same manner prevent it with all people she is acquainted with. He appears to be a wrong-doer, and therefore has no right to prohibit any body. They distinguished this case from the case of Manby v. Scott, 1 Sid. 109, for there the wife wag guilty of the first wrong in eloping (I). (1) A feme covert is in general unable to enter into any contract, vide G-ilb. Law of Evidence, 3d ed. 183. Bull. L. N. P. 134. But where the husband and wife cohabit, if the latter take up goods it is prima facie evidence of a contract entered into by the husband through the means of his wife as his agent, ib. Langfort v. Tyler, Salk. 113. But the law has considered this presumption as stronger and less easy to be repelled where the contract is for such necessaries for the wife and family as are suited to the rank and circumstances of the husband. In the present note it is proposed to consider merely how far such contracts of the wife bind the husband. In doing which it will be necessary to see, first, what the law is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Short v Short
...deserted his wife, or they separated owing to his misconduct, she had an irrevocable authority to pledge his credit for necessaries: Boulton v. Prentice, quoted in the notes to ( Cases Manby v. Scott volume 2 Smith leading cases 13th edition, page 469). One of the most obvious necessaries o......
- Bendall v McWhirter