Drummond and Catharine his Wife, Administrators of Ashe v The Duke of Bolton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 867
COURTS OF KINGS BENCH
drummond and catharine his Wife, Administrators of Ashe vers. the duke of BOLTON. The penalty of a bond is not saved, although one part of a disjunctive condition cannot be performed. An action of debt being brought upon a bond, in the penalty of six thousand pounds, and oyer being prayed of the bond, the condition, after reciting that a marriage was intended to be had, between the plaintiff Catharine daughter to the defendant, who was at that time Lord Harry Paulet, and William Ashe, appeared to be; that if the defendant shall pay or secure to the said Catharine, or to her children by the said William Ashe, three thousand pounds, within six months after the defendant shall become Duke of Bolton, then the obligation to be void. The defendant pleaded ; that William Ashe died without leaving any child born of the body of the plaintiff Catharine, before the defendant became Duke of Bolton ; and that the plaintiff Catharine was not with child at the time of the death of the said William Ashe. [244] Upon a demurrer to this plea, it was holden to be bad. And by the Court.-Laughter's case, 5th Rep. 22, has been cited and relied upon ; in which it is laid down, that if the condition of a bond, consisting of two parts, be in the disjunctive, and the performance of one part, which, as well as the performance of the other part, was possible at the time of entering into the bond, be rendered impossible by the act of God, the penalty is saved ; but we are of opinion ; that this doctrine, which does not appear to be laid down by the Court, but to be the reason given by the reporter for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v How and Another
...that the case put by Treby seems to be indistinguishable in reason from Laughter's case. So, also, in Drummond v. The Duke, of Boulton (Sayer, 243), the court said that the doctrine in Laughter's case, which does not appear to be laid down by the court, but to be the reason given by the rep......
-
Baskett v Baskett
...S. C. 2 Mod. 204. See 1 Salk. 170, pi. 2, where the ground of Laughter's case was denied to be universal: and see Drummond v. D. of Bolton, Say. 243, and post, p. 269. English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 164 THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS Harrington and Leech S. C. post, p. 234,......
-
R v Lediard
...of a justice of the peace; the remedy for the party thereby injured being by an action. Rex and ers. Lediard English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 867 COURTS OF KINGS BENCH [242] michaelmas term, 29 geo. 2, 1755. Sir Dudley Ryder, Chief Justice. Sir Thomas Denison, Sir Michael Foster, Sir John ......