Dutton & Uxor v Pool
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 205
IN THE KING'S BENCH, EXCHEQUER, COURT OF CHANCERY
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 being seized of certain lands now descended to the defendant, and being about to cut a thousand pounds worth of timber off from the said lands, to raise a portion for his said daughter ; the defendant promised to the father, in consideration that he would forbear to fell the timber, that he would pay the said daughter 10001. After verdict, upon non assumpsit, for the plaintiff, it was moved in arrest of judgment, that the father ought to have brought this action, and not the husband and wife ; and there was a case shewn to be adjudged in the Common Bench, Hillary 23 and 24 Car. 2, Rot. 1538, between Pine and Norris, where the son promised the father, that in consideration that he would surrender a copyhold to him, that he would pay a certain sum to his sister, for which she brought the action, and then held that it would lie for none but the father: for where the party to whom the promise is to be performed, is not concern'd in the meritorious cause of it, he cannot bring the action, but if a promise were to a man, that if his daughter should marry his son, he would give her 10001. there, because the daughter does the act, which is the consideration, she may bring the action. On the contrary, the case was cited, 1 Rol. 32, Starkey and Miln, where, in consideration of certain goods sold, the promise was to pay part of the money to another, there that other might bring the action. And it differs from the case where money is delivered to A. to pay over to B. B. may bring debt, Yelv. 24. If the father had in the case at Bar cut the trees, and the son had said, Let me have the trees, and I will pay the daughter so much, that had been tho same with the case before cited, 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beswick v Beswick
...time as a case of great consequence and is reported by no less than five of the old reporters: Sir Thomas Raym p. 302; 2 Levinz p. 210 1 Ventris p. 318, p. 332 3 Keble, p. 786 Sir T. Jones, p. 102. It was similar in principle to our present case. The facts were These: Sir Edward Poole owned......
-
Hill v Gomme
...the children of the marriage are not only objects of, but quasi parties to it. But, going back to 29 Car. 2, the case of DvMm v. Pool (1 Ventr. 318, 332) has been produced as an authority for this Plaintiff's right to sue. Of the Plaintiff's right to [255} sue at law, in that case, I say no......
-
Barry v Barry
...O'BRIEN, HOLMES, and GIBSON, JJ. BARRY and BARRY Curtis v. CottingwoodENR 1 Vent. 29. Rook-wood's Case Cro. Eliz. 164. Dutton v. PooleENR 1 Vent. 318. Braithwaite v. SkinnerENR 5 M. & W. 313. Gregory v. HarmanUNK 1 M. & P. 209. Ewer v. JonesENR 2 Salk. 415. Topham v. Moore-craftENR 8 E. & B......
-
James v Richardson
...case, 2 Leon. 205. Level v. Haioes, Cro. El. 619, 652. Jordan v. Jordan, Cro. El. 369. Bourne v. Mason, 1 Vent. 6. Pine v. Nan-is, cited 1 Vent. 318. 2 Lev. 211-2, and the observations in Butler's Ni. Pri. 134. Martyn v. Hind, Cowper, 437. Crow v. Rogers, 1 Stra. 592. Mardivngton v. Fernon,......