Parnham and Wife v Hurst
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1841 |
| Date | 17 June 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1239
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 435.
[743] parnham and wife v. hurst. Exeh. of Pleas. June, 17, 1841.- Assunipsit by husband and wife for money lent to the defendant by the wife whilst she was sole and unmarried. Plea, that B., the husband, became bankrupt, and that his assignees were duly appointed, and accepted the appointment before the commencement of the suit, by reason whereof the assignees became entitled to the supposed debts and causes of action in the declaration mentioned. Replication, that before the intermarriage of the plaintiffs, and whilst C., the wife, was sole and unmarried, to wit, on &c., by an indenture then made between the said B. of the first part, the said C. of the second part, and T. H. and R. T. J. of the third part, (being a settlement entered into before the intermarriage of the plaintiffs), the sums of money in the declaration mentioned were assigned to the said T. H. and R. T. J., to have, receive, and recover, and to hold the same to them, upon certain trusts in the indenture mentioned, in favour of the said C., and far her sole and separate use during her life, and for the child or children of the intended marriage. The replication then stated, that the plaintiffs appointed T, H. and R. T. J. as their attornies to recover the said sums from the defendant, 1240 PARNHAM V. HURST 8M-&W.7M. for the purpose of holding the same upon the trusts aforesaid, and that the action was commenced and prosecuted in the names of the plaintiffs at the instance and by direction of the said T. H. and R. T. J., by virtue of the power given to them, and for the purpose of recovering, receiving1, and holding the said sums of money as the trustees named in the said indenture, and upon the trusts in favour of the said C., and of the children of the said marriage, and not for the use or benefit of the plaintiff B., or of his creditors under the fiat:-Held, on demurrer, that the replication was good, and that the debt did not pass to the assignees under the bankruptcy of the husband, but might be sued for by the husband and wife. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 435.] Assumpsit for money lent to the defendant by the plaintiff Catherine whilst she was sole and unmarried, and for money due and owing on an account then stated between them. Plea, that before and at the time of the intermarriage of the plaintiff, and until and at and after the time of issuing the fiat in bankruptcy thereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff Benjamin Parnham was a chapman and dealer subject to the bankrupt laws ; that he became a bankrupt; that his assignees were duly appointed and accepted the appointment, before the commencement of this suit, by reason whereof the said assignees, after the accrual of the said causes of action, and before the commencement of this suit, became entitled to the said supposed debts, sums of money, and causes of action in the said declaration mentioned. Replication, that before the making of the promises in the declaration mentioned, and before thejntermarriage of the plaintiffs, and whilst the said Catherine was solo and unmarried, to wit, on &c., by a certain indenture then made between the said plaintiff Benjamin of the first part, the said Catherine, by her maiden name of Catherine Hurst, of the second part, arid one Thomas Hunter and K. T. Jarman of the third part, being a [744] settlement entered into before the intermarriage of the plaintiffSj the said sums of money in the said declaration mentioned, in consideration of the said intended marriage, and for other considerations, were by the said plaintiff Benjamin and the said plaintiff Catherine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...T. R. 690, Hmeell v. M'lvers, S. P. 3 Bos. & Pull. 40, Carpenter v. Marnel. [9 A. & E. 292, Dangerfield v. Thomas. 1 P. & Dav. 287, S. C. 8 M. & W. 743, Parnham v. Hurst. See further 9 Bing. 372, Crowfoot v. Gurney. 2 M. & Scott, 473, S. C. 5 A. & E. 107, Tibbit* v. George. 6 N. & M. 804, S......
-
Trott v Smith, Executor of R Edwards, Deceased
...Marnell (3 Bos. & P. 40), Dangerjield v. Thomas (9 Ad. & E. 292; 1 P. & D. 287), Gardner v. timve (2 Sim. & Stu. 346), Parnham v. Hurst (8 M. & W. 743). It may be said that, because, on the non performance of tha covenant, Wilton might, by possibility, have proved against the bankrupt's est......
-
Kidd v Loughnan
...Carpenter v. MarnellUNK 3 B. & P. 40. Burn v. CarvalhoENR 1 Ad. & El. 883 Leslie v. GuthrieENR 1 Bing. N. C. 697. Parnham v. HurstENR 8 M. & W. 743. Trott v. SmithENR 12 M. & W. 688. D'Arnay v. ChesneauENR 13 M. & W. 796. Spencer's caseUNK 5 Rep. 16. Winch v. KeelyENR 1 T. R. 619. Master v.......
-
Smith v Keating
...in the bankrupt, the legal estate is in his assignee. [Parke, B. Canalho v. Burn is explained by the judgment in Parnham v. Hurst (8 M. & W. 743). Must it not be assumed that the assignment here was valid, the jury having so found it?] All that the jury have found, is, the particular issue.......