Russell against Corn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 884
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
case 172. russell against corn. An action of false imprisonment of the wife, brought by husband and wife, declaring per quod the husband's domestic concerns remained undone, ad damnum of both, is f ood, and the^er quod only for aggravation.-S. C. 1 Salk. 119. S. C. Holt, 699. . C. 2 Ld. Ray. 1031. False imprisonment by husband and wife, for the imprisonment of wife, per quod negotia domestica of the husband per spatiam remanserunt infecta: ad grave danmum of both. It was moved in arrest of judgment, that the business of the husband remaining undone could not be to the damage of the wife, and that the action for that ought to be by the husband alone; as if the husband conclude per quod solamen et consortium amisit, he must conclude ad damnum of him alone. But it was answered, that here the action being well brought and conceived for the imprisonment, what came under the per quod would only be taken for aggravation ; as if words, in themselves actionable, be spoke of a wife, and the husband and wife bring the action, and conclude per quod the husband lost his customers, it will be well (a); for the words being in themselves actionable, the per quod shall be taken for aggravation. Qua omnia Cur. concessit. And by Holt, Chief Justice, matter may be laid by way of aggravation in trespass for breaking his house and beating his servant, without saying per quod sersitium amisit (b). No...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grinnell v Wells
...and child without some service, does not give the father a remedy against the seducer of his daughter; Russell v. Corne (2 Lord Eaym. 1031, 6 Mod. 127), Postlethwaite v. Paries (3 Burr. 1878), Bennett v. Allcott (2 T. E. 166), Dean v. Peel (5 East, 45). In two recent cases in the Exchequer,......
-
Todd and his Wife against Redford
...local actions, see Latch, 197. 2 Lev. 80. 3 Keb. 135. Garth. 182. W. Jones, 33. 1 Salk. 80. 3 Mod. 336. 6 Mod. 194. (a) 1 Salk. 119. S. C. 6 Mod. 127. S. C. Holt, 699. S. C. 2 Ld. Eay. 1031. (a) Yelv. 89. 1 Brownl. 205. 1 Roll. Rep. 360. Cro. Jac. 501, 538, Cro. Car. 90. (b) Smith v. Sexton......
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...Green v. JonesENR 1 Saund. 299, N. 8. Brancker v. MolyneuxUNK 1 Scott, N. R. 553. Darby v. Smith 2 Moo. & Rob. 184. Russell v. CoraENRENR 6 Mod. 127; S. C. 1 Salk. 119. Reece v. Griffiths 5 Man. & Ry. 120. Berry v. AdamsonENR 6 B. & C. 528. Cash v. Trevor 3 Ir. Law Rep. 433. James v. AskewE......
-
Sir William Ashburnham against George Bradshaw and Others
...C. ò2 Atk. 36. S. C. Barn. c. 6. S. C. cited 3 Atk. 552. Robert Bradshaw, clerk, on the twentieth day of November, in the year 1734, (a) 6 Mod. 127. 1 Sauncl. 38. 21 Hen. 7, c. 14, s. 6. (b) Easter term, 1 Geo. 2. 8 Mod. 106, 323. 2 Stra. 778. 2 Ld. Ray, 1503. Prac. Red. 306. 1 Bar. 15. (c......