Dutton and Pool
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1685 |
| Date | 01 January 1685 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 84 E.R. 1011
COURTS OF KINGS BENCH
S. C. 2 Lev. 210; 1 Ventr. 318; T. Ray. 302. Questioned, Tweddle v. Atkinson, 1 B. & S. 399.
38. DUTTON AND POOL. [S. C. 2 Lev. 210; 1 Ventr. 318; T. Eay. 302. Questioned, Tweddle v. Atkinson, 1 B. & S. 399.] Assumpsit. Action upon the case by the husband of the daughter of Sir Edward Pool tenant for life without impeachment of wast, who was about to fell trees for rasing portions for hia children ; and Nevil Pool the defendant (the heir at law) promised to the father Sir Edward Pool in consideration of forbearance to pay 10001. to the plaintiff. Tinder on 3 Cr. Rippon and Norton, praied judgment, the defendant having benefit, albeit he be not alledged heir: but the release of Sir Edward Pool would be a discharge, and therefore the plaintiff is a meer stranger, as 1 Roll. 30, and its not 1012 TRIN. 29 CAR. II. B. R. 3KEBLE.787. averred Sir Edward Pool was thereby to provide a portion for the plaintiff, but only for hia children; which might be others and not the plaintiffs. Wild Justice, No matter whether he be alledged heir or not, for such a promise by a stranger is good, for the father is jure naturae bound to provide. But Tvvisdeu, as Donabies case, this is a collateral promise, and here is ho consideration of intention of marriage portion. Jones Justice in Pine and Norwich's case, in C. B. H. 23 & 24 Car. 2, Rot. 1538, the like promise was held ill: but adjornatur, though the mother who was the only witness, is the executrix of Sir Edward, so cannot bring the action as on promise to him.
English Reports Citation: 84 E.R. 1038
COURTS OF KINGS BENCH
1038 MICH. 29 CAR. II. B. R. 3KBBLE.831. 62. button and pool. Ante. Aasumpsit. On Stiles pi. Vachell and Collard 1 Eoll. Abr. 31. Thomson for the defendant, that the father should have the action and not the son. But by Twisden of counsel in that case it was ruled that either might have it; and Harris and Pine in C. B. on marriage with Eliz. daughter of John Norris against Sybel Norris, on promise by the father to pay to the daughters children on her death 41. per annum, and action upon the case by Pine, who married one child, and uxor, adjudged for the plaintiff. But by Twisden Justice, this was not for portion as the case in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir Ralpii Dutton & Ux' v Sir Nevill Poole
...affirmed, T. Ray. 302. Questioned, Tweddle v. Atkinson, 1861, 1 B. & S. 399.] S. C, 1 Vent. 318, 332. T. Jo. 102. 2 Lev. 210. T. Ray. 302. 3 Keb. 786, 814, 830, 836. The defendant's father being about to fell timber to raise a portion for his daughter, the defendant, in consideration that h......
-
Dutton Arm. & Ux. against Poole Arm
...PASCH. 30 CAB. 2, B. R. JONES. T. 103. button arm. & Ux. against poole arm. [See Twiddle v. Atkinson, 1861, 1 B. & S. 399.] Gloc. Assumps. 3 Keb. 786, 814, 830, 836. Eayra. 302. 1 Vent. 318, 322. 2 Levinz, 210. The plaintiffs declare that in consideration that the father of the defendant ha......
-
Dutton & Uxor v Pool
...and Pool See S. C. 2 Lev. 210; 83 E. R. 523 (with note). [318] button & uxok versus pool. [See S. C. 2 Lev. 210; 83 E. E. 523 (with note).] 3 Keb. 786, 814, &c. Ch. Just. Jones 102. Posted 332. Antea 6, 7. 2 Lev. 210. 3 Lev. 139. In assumpsit, the plaintiff declared, that his wife's father ......
-
Dutton v Poole
...terming sancti michaelis, anno 30 cab. II. in banco regis. button versus poole. Antea 6, 7, 318. 2 Lev. 210. 3 Lev. 139. Sir T. Joues, 102. 3 Keb. 786, 814, 830, 836. Raym. 302. Cujus principium ante, Mich. 29 Car. 2. It was now moved again to stay the judgment, by Saunders, who argued, tha......