Henry Stephenson Johnson and Isabella, his Wife, against Samuel Lucas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 584
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 174; 17 Jur. 1066.
henry stephenson johnson and isabella, his Wife, against samuel lucas. 1853. A declaration by husband and wife on an account stated must shew that the accounting was concerning matters in which the wife had an interest. So held, on demurrer to a declaration posterior to the coming into effect of stat. 15 & 16 Viet. c. 76. [S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 174; 17 Jur. 1066.] The plaintiffs, after stat. 15 & 16 Viet. c. 76, came into operation, sued the defendant for money lent by the plaintiff Isabella before her marriage: " And also for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaiu-[660]-tiffs since their intermarriage on accounts stated between them since the intermarriage of the plaintiffs." Demurrer to the last count. Joinder. The demurrer was argued in Hilary term last (a). Ogle, in support of the demurrer. The account stated with the husband and wife is, in legal effect, stated with the husband alone; and he ought to have sued alone. Stat, 15 & 16 Viet. c. 76, s. 40, may be relied on; but that enactment is applicable only to actions for personal injuries to the wife, not to actions ex contract!!. Quain, contra. No reliance is placed on stat. 15 & 16 Viet. c. 76, s. 40. This was a good count before the statute, and is not made bad by it. Husband and wife may sue jointly on a promissory note made after marriage payable to the wife; Philliskirk v. Pluckwett (2 M. & S. 393). Why not on an account stated with her? A promissory note made payable to the wife, or husband and wife, would itself be evidence of an account stated with the wife in one case and with both in the other. The husband may give his wife an interest in such a cause of action ; and does so by suing in their joint names. [Grompton J. Can a married woman state an account so as to give a consideration for the promise of the other party?] An infant may state an account; the statement is voidable like any other contract made with an infant; Williams v. Moor (11 M. & W. 256). As regards a married woman, the distinction is between the cases of her being plaintiff and defendant. She cannot state an account so as [661] (a) 18th January. Before Lord Campbell C.J., Coleridge, Wightman and Crompton Js. 1 BL. fc BL. 662, JOHNSON V.LUCAS 585 to bind herself; but an account may be stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v Cody
...79. Gaskell v. GaskellENR 2 Ves. Sen. 170. Walter v. Hodge 2 Swanst, 92. Richards v. DelbridgeELR L. R. 18 Eq. 11. Johnson v. LucasENR 1 El. & Bl. 659. Jones v. CuthbertsonELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 504. Bone v. PollardENR 24 Beav. 283. Hoys v. Kindersly 2 Sm. & Gif. 195. Dalton v. The Midland Railw......
-
Edmonds v S-B-
...5 M & W. 142 , Latujmed v Halltday, 6 Exch 761 The section applies to torts and cases in which the wife must join , citing Johnson v Lucas 1 E & B 659 ; 22 L J , Q B 174 ST. & P. 964. EDMONDS V. S B 439 as surety. The defendant had been icquested to execute tho assignment and wart ant of at......
-
COPINGER v QUIRK and Wife. [Common Pleas.]
...LeeENR 15 Sim. 396. Wrotesley v. Adams Plow. 187. Bracebridge v. Cook Plow. 418. AnonymousENR 6 Mod. 239. Johnson and wife v. LucasENRUNK 1 E. & B. 659; S. C., 17 Jur. 1066; S. C., 22 Law Jour., N. S., Q. B. 144. Dunstan and wife v. Burwell 1 Wils. 224. Wildman v. Wildman 9 Ves. jun. 174. M......