Briggs v Morgan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 1820 |
| Date | 24 June 1820 |
| Court | Consistory Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 758
IN THE CONSISTORY COURT
S. C. 3 Phill. 325. Referred to W. v. R., 1876, L. R. 1 P. D. 409.
[324] briggs v. morgan. 21st June, 24th Nov., 1820.-Nullity of marriage by " ~s**^' reason f incurable impotence alleged against the wife not sustained. The charge 3.IT. iyb* ai]gwe(j to be repelled under the circumstances of age, &c. and by a denial ia the form of protestation by affidavits. [S. C. 3 Phill. 325.' Referred to, W. v. R, 1876, L. R. 1 P. D. 409.] This was a suit of nullity of marriage brought by the man, " by reason of incurable natural mal-conformation and bodily defects in the person of the woman." The libel also stated that at the time of the marriage " the woman was a widow of the age of twenty-one years and upwards." On the admission of the libel Dr. Arnold and Dr. Phillimore objected that the circumstances as stated constituted a case which was unprecedented; that the woman being a widow at the time of marriage raised a strong presumption against the truth of this complaint; that it might be different if the former husband had died very early in the cohabitation, but there had been a cohabitation of eighteen years under that marriage; and that, in such a case, it was not sufficient to plead generally the impotence as in the present libel, to put the party on the disgusting inquiry, which is the mode of proof in such cases when brought in due time, and under credible circumstances. That the libel was defective in a material circumstance in not setting forth the age of the parties in its statement; that the parties had lived together sixteen months, which was longer than might have been expected, if the case was really such as the libel described, and not long enough for the triennalis cohabitatio, which was required in cases of disability of another species. That there had been very few instances of suits of this [325] nature against the wife. It was submitted, therefore^ that the Court would not admit the present libel, so as to put the woman on her trial. 2HMJ.CON.3ifc BRIGGS V. MORGAN 759 In support erf the libel Dr. Jenner and Dr. Luihington contended that the objections were inconclusive. The acquiescence of the former husband could not be urged as affording any presumptions against the present case, he might acquiesce from motives of advantage to himself from the wife's fortune, or in the pursuit of his own personal indulgence. Many reasons might be assigned why he might not think fit to complain; this part of the history was, therefore, immaterial. As to the want of specification, it was sufficient that the plea was intelligible to the Court, so as to induce it to apply the usual modes of inquiry. In Greensireet v Cumyns (Consist. 2d Feb., 1812. Vid. p. 332, post) a suit brought by the wife, the inspectors had declared that they saw no necessary cause of disability; but the party admitted the fact, and the Court was satisfied. Such might be the result in this case, or if the party had any plea that could be offered in answer to the matter of the libel, more partieubtrly any thing proceeding from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X City Council v MB and Others
...[1947] 2 All ER 886, [1948] AC 274, HL. Boardman v Boardman (1866) LR 1 P & D 233, 14 WR 1024. Briggs v Morgan (1820) 3 Phillim 325 , 2 Hag Con 324. Brook v Brook (1861) 9 HL Cas 193, HL. Brown v Brown (1865) LR 1 P & D 46. Brown v Brown (1828) 1 Hagg Ecc 523. C (adult: refusal of treatment......
-
Marian v. Alberta, 2001 ABQB 19
...[para. 8]. Tito et al. v. Waddell et al., [1975] 3 All E.R. 997 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 8]. Briggs v. Morgan (1820), 2 Hag. Con. 324; 161 E.R. 758 (Ch.), refd to. [para. Eye Masters Ltd. v. London Optical Ltd. (1988), 22 C.P.R.(3d) 307 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8]. Lewis v. Lewis, [1991......
-
'When Divorce is Away, Nullity's at Play': A New Ground for Annulment, its Dubious Past and its Uncertain Future
...for instance R.M. v. M.M. (1942) 76 ILTR 165. 25 [1949] P 115, [1948] 2 All ER 639. 26 [1990] 2 IR 91, 108. 27 (1820) 2 Hag. Con. 324, (1820) 161 ER 758. See also Morgan v. Morgan [1959] P 92. 28 See the judgment of Kenny J. in S. v. S. [1976-7] ILRM 156. 1998] 'When Divorce is Away, Nullit......