Longworth v Yelverton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1867 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 |
| Date | 30 July 1867 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Ld. Chancellor (Chelmsford). Ld. Cranworth Ld. Colonsay.
Oath of Party—Reference to Oath—Husband and Wife.—
Oath of Party after Judgment of House of Lords.—
Oath of Party—Consistorial Actions.—
Oath of Party.—
Status—Declarator of Marriage.—
(IN the Court of Session, ante, vol. iii. p. 654).
The following narrative is taken from the opinion of the Lord Chancellor:—‘This is an appeal from an interlocutor of the First Division of the Court of Session, refusing to sustain a reference to the oath of the respondent upon a minute of reference tendered by the appellant for that purpose, and finding the appellant liable to the respondent in the expenses incurred by him since the 12th December 1864, the date of lodging the minute of reference to oath.
‘The proceedings which had taken place in the cause (which was a conjoint action of declarator of marriage and putting to silence) before the proposed reference to oath must be shortly recalled.
‘The two actions having been conjoined, and debated before the Lord Ordinary, his Lordship, on the 3d July 1862, issued an interlocutor, finding that, in the action of declarator of marriage, the appellant had not instructed that she was the wife of the respondent, and assoilzied the respondent from the conclusions of the action, and in the action of declarator of freedom and putting to silence, declaring against the appellant, conform to the conclusions of the said action.
‘The appellant presented to the First Division of the Court of Session a reclaiming note against the above judgment of the Lord Ordinary, and on the 19th December 1862 the Lords pronounced an interlocutor recalling the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and in the action of declarator of marriage finding that the appellant had instructed that she was the wife of the respondent, and in the action of declarator of freedom and putting to silence assoilzieing the appellant from the conclusions of the said action. This interlocutor was brought by appeal to this House, and after long argument at the bar your Lordships ordered that the interlocutor complained of be reversed, and declared that the Inner-House (First Division) of the Court of Session ought to have refused the reclaiming note of the present appellant against the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary of the 3d July 1862, and to have adhered to the said interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, save as to damages and expenses; and further ordered “that the cause be remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this declaration, direction, and judgment.”
‘The respondent presented the usual petition to the Court to apply the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gow (Fc) Appellant Against Grant Respondent
...rem. Its effect was to provide conclusive proof that a marriage had been constituted, and it was binding on all persons whomsoever: Longworth v Yelverton (1867) 5 M (HL) 144, per Lord Chancellor Chelmsford at 147. There were various reasons why such an order might be sought. Usually it was ......