Mason against Morgan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1834 |
| Date | 06 November 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 12
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 N. & M. 46; 4 L. J. K. B. 12.
mason against morgan. Friday, Nov. 6th, 1834. A promissory note made payable to a woman who is married at the time of the making, passes by the indorsement of the husband alone, during the coverture. [S. C. 4 N. & M. 46 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 12.] Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration stated that the defendant, on, &c., made his promissory note payable to Sarah, then and still the wife of John Barnard, or order, and that John Barnard indorsed it to the plaintiff. The second count stated the note to have been made payable to John Barnard or order, and that John Barnard indorsed. The third count stated that Sarah Ann, the wife of the plaintiff, while she was unmarried, had advanced money to the [31] defendant; that the defendant, to secure it, and while Sarah Ann was unmarried, had made the promissory note for the amount payable to Sarah, then and still the wife of John Barnard, or order, and delivered it to her in trust and for the use and benefit of Sarah Ann ; that before the bill became due, the plaintiff intermarried with Sarah Ann, and became thereby (a) Lord Denman C.J., Taunton, Patteson, and Williams Js, 2 AD. & R Si TARLETON V. ALLHUSEN 13 entitled to have the note indorsed to him, and that John and Sarah Barnard indorsed it to him. Fleaa to each count severally, that the defendant did not make the E romissory note in the three counts mentioned in manner, &c. On the trial before ord Denraan C.J. at the adjourned sittings at Guildhall after Trinity term last, it was proved that the note was payable to Sarah Barnard, and that John Barnard had indorsed it singly. The counsel for the defendant objected that Sarah Barnard ought to have indorsed also, but his Lordship overruled the objection, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with leave for the defendant to move to set it aside and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...the wife's right, by survivorship, to a note made to her during coverture, (though it will pass by the indorsement of the husband alone, 2 A. & E. 30, Mason v. Morgan. 4 Nev. & M. 46, S. C.,) and qualify, if they do not overrule, the doctrine laid down in M'Neilage v. Holloway, that a promi......
-
Thomas Hart, Administrator of Ann Hart, deceased, against William Stephens
...her debts contracted dum sola. The decision in M'Neilage v. Holloway (1 B. & Aid. 218), is not (b) 1 B. & Aid. 218. See Mason v. Morgan, 2 A. & E. 30. (a)1 Cited in Rawlinson v. Stone, 3 Wils. 5. (a)* 7 T. E. 348. See Byles on Bills, 47 (4th ed.). 6 C. B, 942. HART V. STEPHENS 355 in the de......
-
Luisa Scarpellini against Atcheson
...not give due effect to the indorsement, by which act the property clearly passed. The husband might have indorsed alone ; Mason v. Morgan (2 A. & E, 30) :_and the wife also might indorse, as she did here, by his authority and as his agent; Cotes v. Davis (1 Camp. 485). After his death, an i......