Bryant v Bryant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON,LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1955 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1955] EWCA Civ J0324-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 24 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | 1954 (D) No. 757 |
[1955] EWCA Civ J0324-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court Of Appeal
Lord Justice Singleton,
Lord Justice Denning, and
Lord Justice Hodson
Counsel for the Appellant: MR. E. SOMERSET JONES, instructed by Messrs Chamberlain & Co., Agents for Messrs Williams, Eleby & Bren, Liverpool.
The Respondent was not present and was not represented.
This is an appeal on a question of custody. It all arises under Section 26, sub-section (1), of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, that section appears in much the same form in earlier legislation.
Sub-section (1) reads: "In any proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage or judicial separation, the court may form time to time, either before or by or after the final decree, make such provision as appears just with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of the children the marriage of whose parents is the subject of proceedings, or, if it thinks fit, direct proper proceedings to be taken for placing the children under the protection of the court."
The section has given rise to a little discussion in the Courts, as reference to the case cited to us, Galloway v. Galloway, which is reported in 1954 Probate at page 312, shows.
How does it work out in this case? The Petitioner is Mrs Daphne Madeleine Bryant. On the 23rd October, 1941 she went through a form of marriage with the Respondent, William married a couple of years earlier, and he had a wife, Joan, living, so that the form of marriage through which he had gone with the Petitioner in this suit was null and void; it was a bigamous marriage.
In due course the facts came to light and Bryant was prosecuted, and he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for bigamy. A decree of dissolution of marriage was granted in regard to his first marriage in the year 1948. I assume that the Petitioner was attached to Bryant, for after that date, namely, on the 9th September, 1948, she went through a form of marriage with him. There were born of her first, of bigamous, marriage two children, one in the year 1942 and the other in the year 1947, and there was born of the legitimatemarriage, the 1948 marriage, one girl in the year 1950. something went wrong in regard to what I have spoken of as the legitimate marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent, and in the Petition, which is dated the 14th October, 1954, she sought a Decree that the bigamous marriage was null and void as the other party to that marriage had a wife living at the time the ceremony was performed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v Galloway
...that Denning, L.J. dissented, adhering to the principle he had expressed in M. v. M. ( supra). 61The last case to which I need refer is Bryant v. Bryant [1955] 2 A.E.R. 116. The circumstances of the case were peculiar. The petitioner sought ( a) a decree of nullity of a bigamous marriage wi......
-
The Political Thought of George Santayana
...citizens." 4 Dialogues in Limbo, p. 92.5 The title had already been selected. See The Letters of George Santayana, ed. Daniel Cory (1955), pp. 164, 171, hereinafter cited aside, to be resumed and concluded only under the impetus of the second worldwar. Meanwhile, however, he wrote several a......