Russel & Ux. v Corne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 111
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Hill. 2 Ann. B. R. 2 Ld. Raym. 1031, S. C.
[119] 12. russel & Ux. versus corne. [Hill. 2 Ann. B. R. 2 Ld. Raym. 1031, S. C.] S. C. 6 Mod. 127. Holt 699. 2 Cro. 502. Imprisonment of wife per quod negotia of the husband infecla remanser' ad dampnum of both, held well after verdict. Matter may be laid by way of aggravation, for which no action will lie. Mod. Cases, &c. 26. 10 Rep. 131. Cro. Car. 90, S. C. 2 Salk. 640, by the name of 112 BARON AND FEME l SALKELD, 119. Russel versus Camb. 2 Salk. 593, 594, 642. Show. 180. 1 Keb. 787. 1 Stran. 61. Jon. 440. Trespass and fake imprisonment, by baron and feme, per quod negotia domentica of the husband renutnsentnt infecta ad grave dampnum ipsorum. After verdict for the plaintiffs, it was objected in arrest of judgment, that here being a special damage laid to the husband, tha action should have been brought by him alone. But it was held good, because matter may be laid for aggravation of damages, for which no action would lie; as breaking his house, and beating his daughter ; and yet trespass will riot lie for beating his daughter (a), p. 642. And the plaintiff had judgment (b). (ft) R. ace. Bur. 1878. 2 Bl. Rep. 810. Vide 11 Mod. 264. (a) Lee Ch.J. said, Str. 1094, that in a manuscript note he had seen of this case, Holt C.J. said he would not intend the Judge suffered the husband's business being undone to be given in evidence. Where the gist of the action is the assault on the wife, she must join, and the suit does not survive to the husband ; Higijins v. Butcher, Yelv. 89. Smith v. Sykes, Freem. 224. But the husband alone may bring an action for assaulting the wife per quod consortium amisit. Hyde v. Styssor, Cm. Jac. 538 ; or for wounding the plaintiff and assaulting his wife, per quod, i&c. O-uy v. Livesey, Cro. Jac. 501 ; or for breaking and entering his house, and assaulting his wife (the assault of the wife being in such case matter of aggravation); Dix \. Brookes, 1 Str. 61 ; or for breaking his house, beating his wife, and taking his goods; Head v. Marstiall, 8 Mod. 26. Fortesc. 377 ; or for maliciously prosecuting the plaintiff and his wife, by which they were both scandalized, the husband interrupted in his trade, and put to expeiice ; Smith v. Hixon, 2 Str. 977. (In that case the defendant was found not guilty as to the husband, and it was moved in arrest of judgment that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v Greinold
...47. 1 Mod. 124, 129. Husband not liable for necessaries of the wife after elopement 1SALEELD, 121 BASTARD 113 English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 112 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND Pas. 3 Ann. coram Holt C. J. At Nisi Prius at Guildhall. 13. robinson versus greinold. [Pas......
-
Haydon v Gould
...47. 1 Mod. 124, 129. Husband not liable for necessaries of the wife after elopement 1SALEELD, 121 BASTARD 113 English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 112 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND Pas. 3 Ann. coram Holt C. J. At Nisi Prius at Guildhall. 13. robinson versus greinold. [Pas......
- Russell v Corne