Hartley against Rice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1808 |
| Date | 21 June 1808 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 683
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
22] hartley against kioe. Tuesday, June 21st, 1808. A wagering contract for 50 guineas, that the plaintiff would not marry within six years, is primfi, facie in restraint of marriage, and therefore void; no circumstances appearing to shew that such restraint was prudent and proper in the particular instance. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit upon a wager made on the 25th of November (a) 5 Term Rep. 19. (b) 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 41, and vide stat. 39 & 40 G. 3, c. 89, which recites the inter vening statutes: but see the case before Foster J. in the Appendix to his Treatise on the Crown Law, 439, edit, of 1792, and 2 East's P. C. 765. (c) The fact proved there was that a pheasant had been killed by accident by the defendant's dog; and the defendant had afterwards carried it away. Two penalties were sought to be recovered, one for having the pheasant in his possession not being qualified, the other for keeping a dog to kill game. Mr. Justice Buller is said to have ruled that the plaintiff could go for one penalty only, " for that both offences being by the same Act, the plaintiff could recover but one penalty under the same statute." The wording being equivocal, it was considered at first as if by the word Act was to be understood statute ; which it was agreed on all hands could not have been ruled by the learned Judge ; who probably said that two penalties could not be recovered under this statute for the same act done by the defendant. 684 HARTLEY V. RICE 10 EAST, 23. 1799, whereby he betted with the defendant 50 guineas that he the plaintiff should not be married in six years; stating that in consideration that the plaintiff promised to pay the defendant 50 guineas in case he, the plaintiff, should be married within that time, the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff the like sum if the plaintiff should not be married within that time. And then the plaintiff averred, that from the time of making the promise he has not been nor is yet married, but during all the time has remained and still is unmarried; wiereby the defendant, at the expiration of six years from the making of the promise, became liable to pay to him the said sum, &c. To this the defendant demurred specially, on the ground that the contract declared on was illegal and void; the same having been entered into in restraint of marriage, and tending to prevent the plaintiff from marrying during six years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morley v Linkson
...to fortify it by a penalty. This the law does not permit: Low v. Peers (4 Burr. 2225; S. C., C. J. Wilmot's Cases, 364), Hartley v. Mice (10 East, 22). It is not necessary to contend that a party may not in some cases create a valid limitation of property until marriage, or that he may not ......
-
Evans v Rosser
...& Cr. 145), a case in which the defeasance was held bad notwithstanding a gift over; Marley v. Rennoldson (2 Hare, 570) ; Hartley v. Rice (10 East, 22). In many of the cases there is nothing to shew that the marriages restrained were not second marriages, and the distinction between first a......
-
Gilbert, Clerk, against Sir Mark Sykes
...3 Term Rep; 697. . (a)3 7 Term Rep. 535. (Vf 8 Term Rep. 575. (c)2 1 Term Rep. 56. (d)2 2 Term Rep. 610. (e)2 2 Bos. & Pull. 130. ,(/)2 10 East, 22. 16 EAST, 154. GILBERT V. SYKES 1047 annuity either in form or substance : no such contract was in the contemplation of either of the parties. ......
-
Jones v Waite
...v. Bmdshaw (2 Vern. 102), Lowe v. Peers (4 Burr. 2225), Brmm v. Peck (Eden, C. C. 140), Allen v. Hearn (1 T. E. 56), and Hartley v. Rice (10 East, 22), to shew that the consideration was illegal; and he relied upon Fletcher v. Flekher (2 Cox, 99), Legwrd v. Johnson (3 Ves. 352, 361), Lord S......