Deerly v The Duchess of Mazarine
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 107
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Hill. 8 Will. 3, B. R.
5. deerly versus the duchess of mazarine. [Hill. 8 Will. 3, B. R.] Divorce intended. Comb. 402. Post, 646. 1 Ld. Raym. 147, S. C. Assumpsit for wages and money lent; on non assumpsit the defendant proved she was married, and her husband alive in France. The jury found for the plaintiff; upon which, aa a verdict against evidence, she moved for a new trial, but it was denied ; for it shall be intended she was divorced: besides, the husband is an alien enemy, and in that case why is not his wife chargeable as a feme sole, as much as if he had abjured or been banished : which was the case of The Lady Bellcnap and Weyland, Co. Lit. 132 b. 133 a. (a). (a) In Sparrow v. Caruthers, 2 Bl. Rep. 1197. Yates J. ruled at Carlisle Assizes, that the wife of a man transported is liable to be sued alone.-In a case before Lord Mansfield at Maidstone, the same was also ruled; Cooke's Bankrupt Law, 43. It also appears in several instances, cited Co. Lit. 132 b. 133 a. and by the case of The Countess of Portland v. Podgers, 2 Vern. 104, that where the husband was banished, or had abjured the realm, it should be considered as a civil death, and the wife should in all respects be regarded as a feme sole, In the following eases the doctrine of a, feme covert being suable as a, feme sole has been carried considerably further; Eingstead v. Lanesborough, Cooke's Bankrupt Law, 32. To an action of assumpsit the defendant pleaded, that, at the time of the 108 BARON AND FEM.E 1 SALKBLD, 116. promise, she was wife of Lord Laneaborough, since deceased ; and a replication, " that the defendant lived separate from her husband, they being parted before the promise made, and that she, by a deed of separation, had a large separate allowance which was duly paid, and that the defendant lived in England and her husband in Ireland," was on demurrer held good. A separate maintenance must be reserved to the wife by deed, in order to make her liable to her own debts. Espin. Evid. N. Pr. Easter term, 34 Geo. 3, Stedman v. Oooch. Barwell v. Brookes, Cooke's Bankrupt Law, 36. Replication, " that the defendant lived separate and apart from her husband, and had a competent separate maintenance regularly paid, and that the goods were furnished for her separate use and support," good on demurrer. In Lady Lanesbarough's case some stress had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Todd v Stoakes
...E.R. 108" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 108 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND Mich. 8. W. 3, coram Holt C. J. At Nisi Prius at Guildhall 1 Ld. Raym. 444, S. C. 6. todd versus stoakes. [Mich. 8. W. 3, cm-am Holt C.J. At ......
-
Woodyer v Gresham
...husband, after notorious separation by consent, with separate allowance. 1 Lev. 5. 6 Mod. 147, 167. 1 Mod. 9 English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 108 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER. Todd and Stoakes Mich. 8. W. 3, coram Holt C. J. At Nisi Prius at Guildhall 1 Ld.......