Kelly and Wife v Small
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 507
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
[716] Jan. 26. kelly and wipe v. small. (Where an action is brought by the husband and wife for a debt due to the wife, dum sota, any admission respecting it, made by the wife after marriage, is inadmissible as against the husband.) Assumpsit for money lent, with the common money counts. Plea of non assumpsit. The action was brought to recover a sum of money lent by the plaintiff Ann, while she was sele to the defendant , and for money paid for his use at the same period The defence attempted was, That the plaintiff's wife before her intermarriage, lived as a mistress with the defendant, during which time they had had a common purse, so that whatever money transactions might have taken place between them, it was not in the nature of a loan ò and the defendant proposed to call a witness to prove, that since her marriage, the wife had said she had no demand against the defendant , but was compelled to sue him by her husband This evidence was objected to by the plaintiffs counsel Mmgay, for the defendant, contended, That it was admissible, on the ground that, as the debt had been contracted and owing to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tait v Beggs
... ... S. C. (Ir.), Order XXXIX., R. 7. The defendants, husband and wife, were sued for slander spoken by the defendant, Mrs. B., of the plaintiff. Mrs. B. at first denied ... It is still his right.” Kelly and Wife v. Small ( 2 ), before Lord Kenyon, is also to the same effect. Humphreys ... ...
-
Rogers v Bolton
...L. R. 3 Q. B. 536; on appeal, L. R. 4. Q. B. 500. Connor v. Martin 3 Wills. 5. Palmer v. TrevorENR 1 Vern. 262. Kelly v. SmallENR 2 Esp. 716. Alban v. PritchettENR 6 T. R. 680. Hume v. PeploeENR 8 East 168. Poole v. Tumbridge 2 M & Wels. 223. Miles v. WilliamsENR 10 Mod. 247. Debenham v. Me......
-
M'Creesh v M'Geough
...M'GEOUGH. Hyatt v. Griffiths 17 Q. B. 505. Denn v. CartrightENR 4 East, 29. Digby v. AtkinsonENR 4 Camp. 275. Hillingsworth v. StennettENR 2 Esp. 716. Hurley v. HanrahanUNKIR I. R. 1 C. L. 700. Hamerton v. SteadENR 6 B. & C. 483. Knight v. BennettENR 11 Moore, 222. Edwards v. ReesENR 7 C. &......
-
O'Keeffe v Walsh
...C., MORRIS, C. J., DEASY and FITZ GIBBON, L.JJ. O'KEEFFE and WALSH. Caulfield v. FarrUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 469. Hollingworth v. StennettENR 2 Esp. 716. Jones v. Shears 4 Ad. & Ell. 832. Finlay v. The Bristol and Exeter Railway CompanyENR 7 Exch. 409. Nixon v. DarleyUNK Ir. R. 2 C. L. 467. Fahy......