MUNDEN against THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK. CHARLOTTE MUNDEN Plaintiff: AGAINST THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK - - Defendant. PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF QUEEN”S BENCH BEFORE LORD DENMAN, L.C.J., PATTESON, WIGHTMAN, AND ERLE, JJ.,(a) IN AN ACTION OF DEBT ON DEMURRER TO THE PLAINTIFF”S REPLICATION. APRIL 27, MAY 25, 1847. (Reported in 10 Q.B. 656, 11 Jur. 80], & 16 L.J. N.S. Q.B. 300.) Action of debt on an annuity deed. Plea, that at the time of making the deed the defendant was the reigning sovereign duke of Brunswick and Luneberg ; that the deed was made by him within his dominions ; and that, from the time of the making thereof until action brought, he had been, and still was, justly entitled to all the rights, prerogatives, and privileges appertaining to him as the duke of Brunswick and Luneberg. Replication, that after the making of the deed, the defendant had quitted his dominions, and was domiciled in England as a private individual. Held by the Court of Queen”s Bench on demurrer to the replication Action against foreign sovereign.(b) That the plea was bad for not stating that defendant was reigning sovereign duke at the time when the action was brought or plea pleaded. (a) Afterwards Chief Justice of C.V. (h) See The Duke of Brunswick v. the King of Hanover, and cases there cited, above, p. 34. Debt on an annuity deed of 2nd February 1829, by which the defendant granted to the plaintiff an annuity of 2001. for her life. The declaration claimed 2001. as the annuity due and unpaid in February, 1846. Plea. That, at the time of making the deed, the defendant was a sovereign prince ; that is to say, the reigning sovereign duke of the duchy of Brunswick and Luneberg. That the said deed was made by him within his said dominions, and that from the time of the making thereof continually, and at the time of the commencement of this suit, defendant had been, and still was, justly entitled to all the rights, prerogatives and privileges appertaining to him as the Duke of Brunswick and Luneberg. That, by reason of the premises, he ought not to be compelled against his will to answer to any action for the cause aforesaid before any justice or minister of the Queen of this Kingdom, or other judge whomsoever, or any Court whatsoever. Replication. That the Court ought not to be barred from taking cognizance of the aforesaid action of the plaintiff”; because the said contract was made by defendant, and the said debt accrued from defendant to plaintiff, not for, or inrespect of...
