McNeilage v Holloway
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1818 |
| Date | 23 January 1818 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 80
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Commented on, Richards v. Richards, 1831, 2 B. & Ad. 452. Dictum disapproved, Hart v. Stephens, 1845, 6 Q. B. 943. Commented on, Fleet v. Perrins, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 510.
[218] archibald m'neilage against john peter holloway(). Friday, Jan. 23d, 1&18. Where a bill of exchange was payable to a feme sole, who intermarried before the same was due, it was holden that the husband might sue in his own name, without joining the wife, although the latter had not indorsed the bill. [Commented on, Richards v. Richards, 1831, 2 B. & Ad. 452. Dictum disapproved, Hart v. Stephens, 1845, 6 Q. B. 943. Commented on, Fleet v. Perrins, 1869, L. R. 4Q. B.510.] Declaration stated, that S. Branseomb, before the intermarriage of plaintiff with one Anne Innes, according to the usage and custom of merchants, duly made her certain bill of exchange, and directed the same to defendant, by which the said Sarah requested defendant to pay, three months after the date thereof, to Anne Innes or her order, 1871. 10s., for value received, and delivered the bill to said Anne, which bill defendant accepted, &e.; and plaintiff avers, that after making the bill, and before same became payable according to the tenor and effect thereof, &c. at, &c. he intermarried with the said Anne Innes, by means whereof defendant, after the intermarriage of plaintiff with said Anne, &c. became liable to pay to plaintiff the money in the bill specified, according to the tenor and effect of the bill and of his acceptance; and being (c) 2 Taunt. 387. (d) 2 Stra. 957, notes. (e) Barnes, 288. (a) The Judges of this Court sat at Serjeants' Inn on Monday the 19th January, and on the succeeding days, until the term, and heard this and several of the following cases argued by counsel, and delivered their opinions, as upon former occasions, (see ante, p. 1,) and the Court afterwards gave judgment on the day on which the cases are now reported. . i B.&ALD.219. m'neilage v. hollo way 81 so liable, defendant, in consideration thereof, after the intermarriage of plaintiff with said Anne, &e. promised plaintiff to pay him the money in the bill specified according to the tenor and effect of the bill, and of his acceptance thereof. Plea non assumpsit. [219] Scarlett, in the last term, had obtained a rule, calling on plaintiff, who had, upon this declaration, obtained a verdict, to shew cause why the judgment should not be arrested, on the ground that the wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...husband might maintain an action upon it in his own name without joining the wife, and without any indorsement having been made by her. 1 B. & A. 218, M'Neilaije v. Holloway. However, husband and wife may join in an action on a note given to the wife during coverture; at least if it do not ......
-
Lee and Wife v Patrick Hayes
...v. The Earl of SpencerENR Jacob, 67. Roberts v. RobertsENR 3 P. Wms. 66. Eyre v. M'Dowell 9 H. of L. Cas. 619. M'Neilage v. HollowayENR 1 B. & Ald. 218. Purdew v. JacksonENR 1 Russ. 66. Sherrington v. YatesENR 12 M. & W. 855. Gaters v. "MadeleyENR 6 M. & W. 423. Halloran v. ThompsonENR 8 Ir......
-
Martha Richards against William Richards
...2B.&AD.451. a chattel; it therefore belongs to the executors of the husband, and does not survive to the wife. In M'Neilage v. Holloway (1 B. & A. 218), it was held that a bill of exchange payable to a feme sole, who married before the same was due, was in the nature of a personal chattel, ......