Martha Richards against William Richards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1208
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 319. Discussed, Gaters v. Madeley, 1840, 6 Mee. & W. 427; Hart v. Stephens, 1845, 6 Q. B. 943. Followed, Fleet v. Perrins, 1869. L. R. 4 Q. B. 510.
martha richards against william richards. 1831. A married woman being administratrix received a sum of money in that character, and lent the same to her husband, and took in return for it the joint and several promissory note of her husband and two other persons, payable to her with interest: Held, that although she could not have maintained any action upon the note during the lifetime of her husband, yet that he having died, and it having been given for a good consideration, it was a chose in action surviving to the wife, and that she might maintain an action upon it against either of the other makers at any time (a)1 During Hilary term Parke J., and during Easter term Taunton J. usually sat in the Bail Court, hearing motions, &c. (of During this term, Patteson J. usually sat in the Bail Court to hear motions, &c. 2 B. & AD. 448. RICHARDS U.RICHARDS 1209 within six years after the death of her husband, and recover interest from the date of the note. [S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 319. Discussed, Outers v. Madeley, 1840, 6 Mee. & W. 427; Hart v. Stephens, 1845, 6 Q. B. 943. Followed, Fleet v. Perrins, 1869, L. E. 4 Q. B. 510.] This was an action on a promissory note, dated the 20th of November 1817, for payment to Martha Richards of 3001., with lawful interest, for value received. The defendant pleaded, first, the general issue; secondly, the Statute of Limitations. The cause was tried before Bosanquet J. at the Somerset Spring Assizes 1830. It appeared that the note was the joint and several note of Thomas Richards, Senior, William Richards, and Thomas Richards. Martha Richards, the payee of the note, and present plaintiff, was, at the time when the note was made, the wife, and, when the action [448] was brought, the widow, of Thomas Richards, Senior, one of the makers of the note; he died on the llth of July 1827. The sum for which the note was given was money which belonged to the plaintiff as administratrix of Samuel Reynold, her first husband, and arose from the paying off some securities given to Reynold, and which securities were discharged and the money paid, in the lifetime of Thomas Richards, the second husband. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the principal money and interest from the date of the note. In Easter term 1830, a rule nisi was obtained to enter a nonsuit or reduce the damages to 3001. R. Bayly in Easter term shewed cause. The promissory note was a chose in action; and not having been reduced into possession by the husband, it survived to the wife. She, therefore, may now maintain an action on it. The Statute of Limitations is no answer, because the plaintiff having been a feme covert at the time the note was given, no right of action accrued to her till the death of her husband, and she commenced her suit within six years after that event. She is entitled to recover interest from the date of the note by the express terms of the contract between the parties. Erie and Follett contra. First, the note is altogether void; and, secondly, if it be valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...Madd. 133, Nash v. Nash; in which laat case the Master of the Rolls [Sir Thos. Plumer] treated the note aa a chose. in action. [See also 2 B. & Ad. 447, Richards v. Richards. 6 M. & W. 423, Outers v. Madely; which authorities are decisive in favour of the wife's right, by survivorship, to a......
-
Cabell v Vaughan
...the case of persons with whom the contract was made. If the contract be still the same, not- on the authority of Richards v. Ricliards. 2 B. & Ad. 447. Mann. & R. S. C., where it was held that a married woman to whom a joint and several note had been given by her husband, and two other pers......
-
M'Cartey v M'Loughlin and Doyle
...Esp. 47. Hallifax v. LyleENR 3 Ex. 446. Drayton v. DaleENR 2 B. & C. 293. Armani v. CastriqueENR 13 M. & W. 443. Richards v. RichardsENR 2 B. & Ad. 447. Pitt v. ChappelowENR 8 M. & W. 616. Hallifax v. LyleENR 3 Exch. 446. Barlow v. BishopENR 1 East, 432. Richards v. Richards 2B. & Ad. 447. ......
-
Talbot v Cody
...1 Atk. 270. Vandenberg v. PalmerENR 4 K. & J. 204. Mews v. MewsENR 15 Beav. 529. Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 624. Richards v. RichardsENR 2 B. & Ad. 447. Wheatly v. ParrENR 1 Keen. 551. Smith v. WardENR 15 Sim. 56. Fowkes v. PascoeELR L. R. 10 Ch. App. 243. Hopkins v. AbbottELR L. R. 19 Eq. ......