Durantt v Durant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Date | 01 January 1822 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 162 E.R. 40
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURT AT DOCTOR'S COMMON AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.
see further, 2 Add. 267.
[114] durant v. durant. Arches Court, Easter Term, 2nd Session, 1822.- Whatever is to be done personally by the party principal in the cause requires, in strictness, a personal service of the notice, or deciee, for doing it, upon the party principal. Hence, the service of a decree for answers upon the proctor will not justify the Court in putting the principal in contempt, if those answers are not brought in. [See further, 2 Add. 267.] (An appeal from the Consistorial Episcopal Court of Lichfield and Coventry.) This, in the first instance, was a cause of divorce, or separation a mensa et thoro, by reason of adultery, promoted and brought by Mary Ann Durant, wife of George Durant, Esq., of the parish of Tong Castle, county of Salop, in the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, and province of Canterbury, against the said George Durant, Esq., in the Consistorial Episcopal Court of Lichfield and Coventry. The present appeal was entered, on the part of the original defendant, from a sentence or order of that Con-sitory Court, pronouncing him in contempt, and decreeing him to be signified, pursuant to the statute (stat. 53 Geo. 3, c. 127). The proceedings had in the Court below are stated in the judgment. Judgment-Sir John Nitholl The course which the present appeal has taken relieves me from the obligation of determining on the merits of it, for it appears, if I may sasay, to have determined itself. But it involves a question of some nicety in practice ; upon which it may be convenient that I should embrace the opportunity, thus afforded me, of delivering my opinion. [115] This iu an appeal from the Consistory Court of Coventry and Lichfield, where the suit originally depended, being a suit of sepaiation a mensa et thoro, promoted by the wife against the husband for adultery. The citation was returned, personally served on the 18th of January, 1820; but no appearance was given for the party cited till the 8th of May, 1821 ; and then only, it should seem, in consequence of a notice served upon the party on the 17th of April preceding, that he would be put in contempt and signified, failing to appear upon that day. A libel and allegation of faculties were brought in on the 22d of May, and were admitted on the 3d of July, 1 AB. 116 DURANT V. DURANT 41 when a general negative issue to the libel was given for the defendant, and a decree for answers, both to the libel and allegation of faculties was ptayed for the plaintiff. The decree was subsequently extracted, and was returned on the 9th of October, personally served upon the defendant's proctor, who appeared to the decree, and was assigned to bring m his client's answers by the next Court This assignation was continued from Court day to Court day, till the 15th of January, 1822, when the Judge (having already previously directed a notice to be served on the party, and which was actually so served on the 8th of November, that he would be put in contempt if his answers weie not filed as on the 20th of November preceding, his proctor then appearing, and still appealing from Court day to Court day, and praying further time) pronounced the defendant in contempt, from which supposed grievance this appeal has been duly prosecuted to its present stage. [116] Now, on the face of these proceedings, there aie strong giounds to suspect that the defendant has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durant v Durant
...ground is one of such a nature as to suggest serious doubts whether, under any circumstances, the Court would be justified in (a) See 1 Add. 114. (6) Twenty-three on the libel, and twenty-one on the allegation of faculties, 2 ABB 370. DURANT V. DURANT 293 attaching any weight to it in suppo......
-
Prankard v Deacle
...were shewn to be cognizant in fact, the Court would not conclude him unless he were formally and legally cognizant. In Durant v. Duranl (1 Add. 114), where, upon a decree for answers (to an allegation of faculties) personally served on tie proctor, the husband was pronounced in contempt for......
-
Worsley v Worsley
...wife against her husband, and begun in the Consistory Court of Lichfield; from whence it came up here on an appeal from a grievance (vide 1 Add. 114). It is unnecessary to state more of the proceedings than that they commenced in January, 1820, and have been depending five years. This delay......