Briggs v Morgan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1820 |
| Date | 21 June 1820 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 1339
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.
S. C. 2 Hagg. Con. 324; 161 E. R. 758.
[325] briggs . MORGAN. Consistory Court of London, Trinity Term, June 21st, 1820.-It is competent to a man to bring a suit of nullity of marriage against a woman for natural malformation. [S. C. 2 Hagg. Con. 324; 161 E. R. 758.] This was a suit for nullity of marriage, brought by a man against his wife, by reason of incurable natural malformation and bodily defects in her person. She was described in the libel as having been a widow when he married her. Arnold and Phillimore. This suit is unprecedented ; and the circumstance of the woman having been a widow raises such a presumption in her favour as cannot be averred against, unless it could have been pleaded that the former husband died too soon to complain : but that cannot be the case, for the cohabitation was of eighteen years' continuance. Added to this, the age is omitted to be stated. This might be sufficient of itself to protect the party from such an inquisition as she must submit to, should the libel be admitted to proof. The charge is not sufficiently specified , if the idea is to be conveyed that she is nimis arcta, then the triennalis cohabitatio might be necessary, as it is in the case of frigidity ; and it could not be competent to this man, who haa [326] been married only one year and five months, to institute the suit Such was Grnmbaldeston's case (Cons. 1777. Arches, 1779). Only two cases within our recollection have been brought in these Courts by the man, viz Wilson v. Morns (Cons of London, 1785) and Guest v. Guei t (Cons of London, May 20, 1820), and m the first 1340 BRIGGS V. MORGAN 3 PHILL. ECC 327 of these the libel was rejected. Sir William Wynne said that none had been admitted in his memory, where the suit had been brought against the woman. C. 5, 7. Nov. 22, 6. Dcr. 2, 33. X. 4, 15. X. 2, 19, 4. Jenner and Lushington contra. The trienniutn is not required where the case set up is that of the woman being nimis areta. It is objected that she is a widow : but if the first husband acquiesced in her infirmity, the second is not bound to do the saaae. The sentence would not affect the former marriage-for it could be only voidable, and therefore cannot be enquired into after the death of one of the parties. Besides the acquiescence of the husband is contemplated in law; "habeat ut sororem." It is objected that her age has not been stated. The Court is not to presume that she is past the age of sexual intercourse: if she were, it is extraordinary that the husband should bring the suit. The woman may plead her age or state it in the answers: but at all events she is not entitled to defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P.F. v G. O'M. (otherwise G.F.) (Nullity: Consent)
...on this before the marriage or if the ages of the parties make it improbable that they could have intercourse (Briggs v Morgan (1820) 3 Phill. ECC 325), a spouse who was not aware of the determination of the other is entitled to a declaration that the marriage was null. The intention not to......
-
McK. v McK
... ... Even as to cases of natural malformation the views expressed by Sir William Scott in Briggs v. Morgan (1) were as follows:—"Cases of this nature are said to be of rare occurrence and that three only have been brought by the man within the ... ...
-
U.F. (Otherwise U.C.) v J.C.
...1989] U.F. (Orse. U.C.) v. J.C. U.F. (orse. U.C.) Petitioner and J.C. Respondent Cases mentioned in this report:— Briggs v. Morgan (1820) 3 Phill. Ecc. 325. B. v. M. (Unreported, High Court, Barrington J., 27th March, 1987). C. (orse G.) v. C. (Unreported, High Court, MacKenzie J., October,......
-
X City Council v MB, NB and MAB [FD]
... ... As Sir William Scott said long ago, "Parties marry for offspring; for the enjoyment of each other's person": Briggs v Morgan (1820) 3 Phill Ecc 325 at p330. And, after all, a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated owing to either incapacity to ... ...