Bramwell v Bramwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1942 |
| Date | 1942 |
| Year | 1942 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Husband and wife - Recovery of property - County court - Procedure - Originating application - Tenancy - Creation -
A husband left his wife who had been living with him in a freehold house which he owned. On a summons by the wife for desertion, justices ordered the husband to pay her 1 l. 12s. a week maintenance, but intimated that he need pay only 1 l. a week as long as she lived in the house. On October 23, 1940, the husband gave the wife notice to quit and deliver up possession of the house by November 4, 1940, but she did not do so and he continued to pay her 1 l. a week until October, 1941, when he issued a summons in the county court claiming possession:—
Held, that no relationship between the husband and the wife of landlord and tenant was to be inferred from these facts.
Per Goddard L.J. Semble, proceedings for the recovery of land are in their essence an action for tort and therefore by virtue of the express provisions of s. 12 of the Married Women's Property Act cannot be brought in any court by a husband against his wife. Where the husband desires to dispute the title of his wife to land or premises or her possession thereof in the county court, he should bring the matter before the court by an originating application under Or VI, r. 4, sub-r. 1, of the County Court Rules, 1936–1940.
APPEAL from Judge Allsebrook at Barrow-in-Furness county court.
On August 31, 1940, James Bramwell left his wife, Eliza Bramwell, who had been living with him in a freehold house which he owned, On October 21, 1940, on a summons by the wife for desertion, justices ordered the husband to pay to her 1 l. 12s. a week maintenance, but intimated that he need pay only 1 l. a week so long as she lived in the house, By a letter written by the husband's solicitors on October 23. 1940, he gave her notice to quit and deliver up possession by November 4, 1940. She did not do so, and he continued to pay her 1 l. a week. On October 9, 1941, the county court judge, on a summons by which the husband claimed possession of the house, found that a tenancy of the house at a rent of 12s. a week had been created by the conduct of the parties; that notice to quit had been given by the letter of October 23, 1940, but that rent had been accepted for eleven...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Alagappa Chettiar v Coliseum Cafe
-
Short v Short
...although the difficulties in the way of the husband in a common law action for ejectment may well have been insurmountable. (See Bramwell v. Bramwell, 1942, volume 1 King'd Bench Division, page 370, per Lord Justice Goddard) These difficulties are removed by the Act of 1882 for, as Lord Jus......
- Mohamed Abu Bakar s/o Yusof v P.A. Syed Aboothahir s/o P.Ahmed (1990) 1 MSCLC 90, 392;
- Johandra Realty Sdn Bhd and Another v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Malaysia and Others
-
MESNE PROFIT
...Odutola v. Papersack (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. S.C. 280/2003; (2006) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1012) 470 at 495 - 496. (3) "In Bramwell v. Bramwell (1942) 1 K.B. 370; (1942) 1 All E.L.R. 137 at 138, Goddard L.J. had earlier described the expression "mesne profits" as follows: "Only another term for damag......