John Ivens against William Jones Butler and Ann Butler his Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1857 |
| Date | 15 January 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1207
Queen's Bench Division
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 145; 3 Jur. N. S. 334.
discharged. We think that the pariah officers will do well to allow to the Company the sum paid in excess, and that they will run no risk in doing so, Rule discharged. 1.2.ie _ [159] JOHN IVENS against WILLIAM JONES BUTLER AND ANN BUTLER his Wife. Thursday, January 15th, 1857. Where judgment is obtained against a husband and wife for the debt of the wife dam sole, arid the wife is taken in execution, the Court, in its discretion, will discharge the wife from custody, unless it is shewn that she has separate property which may be applied to the satisfaction of the deletesAlthough the husband has riot been and cannot be takers, he having obtained final protection from the Court of Insolvent Debtors. It is not sufficient, in order to prevent this exercise of the discretion of the Court, that the wife's property was, before her marriage, assigned to trustees for her creditors, and the trustees had power, if they thought fit, to make her an allowance, and were to make over to her any surplus which might remain after the creditors should be satisfied. [S, C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 145; 3 Jur. N. S. 334.] Forteecue moved for a rule to chew cause why the defendant Ann Butler should riot be discharged out of the custody of the sheriff of Surrey as to this action. From the affidavits in support of the rule it appeared that Ann Butler, while single, before 31st July 1854, carried on business as a wheelwright in Middlesex, and had become indebted to the plaintiff in 701. 15s. On that day she executed an aseignment of the whole of her estate and effects to trustees for the benefit of all her creditor; who should assent before 1st November following. The trusts of the deed ware that the trustees should carry on the business for the benefit of the creditors, and might pay to her such a sum as they might think fit for the maintenance of her. self and family, not exceeding 1001. for the first year and 2001. for any succeeding year ; and they were to reassign to her what surplus might remain after the performithee of the trusts. They had power to sell the effects, if they found the business not profitable, and to apply the purchase money to the said trusts, It was deposed that the estate and effects were very valuable, and that the trustees, or one of them, had continued to carry on the business under [160] the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v Elliott and Wife
...1 Brod. — B. 391. MOORE and ELLIOTT AND WIFE. Ivens v. ButlerENR 7 E. & B. 159. Edwards v. Martyn 17 Q. B. 693. Larkin v. MarshallENR 4 Exch. 804. Practice — Discharge from Custdy — Husband and Wife. YOL. V.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 801 benefit of the subject as money paid to Ms use. To the same......