Sir Ralpii Dutton & Ux' v Sir Nevill Poole
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 352
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[471] case 646. sir ralph button & Ux' v. sir nevill poole. [S. C. affirmed, T. Ray. 302. Questioned, Tweddle v. Atkinson, 1861, 1 B. & S. 399.] S. C, 1 Vent. 318, 332. T. Jo. 102. 2 Lev. 210. T. Ray. 302. 3 Keb. 786, 814, 830, 836. The defendant's father being about to fell timber to raise a portion for his daughter, the defendant, in consideration that he would forbear to do so, promised his father to pay her 10001. The daughter may sue the defendant upon this promise. Action sur la case. The defendant's father had an intention to cut down a grove of oaks to provide portions for his younger children, whereof the plaintiff's wife was one ; and the defendant, in consideration he would forbear to fell the said timber, did promise his father, that he would give the plaintiffs wife (being his sister) 10001., for which she and her husband brought this action. The sole question was, whether the daughter could bring this action, or whether it ought not to have been brought by the father ; because although the promise was made for the plaintiff's benefit, it was made to the father? J. Wylde said, he knew no case where any party could maintain an action of this nature; but it must either be the party to whom the promise was made, or else the person from whom the meritorious consideration did arise ; as if I promise A. that if his son will marry my daughter, I will give his son 1001. if the son marrietb, he may bring the action, because the meritorious consideration, which is the marriage, ariseth from the son. J. Jones :-If it were a covenant by a deed to pay money to a third person, the covenantee must bring the action, and the other is put to his remedy in equity ; yet it was agreed that an use may arise upon a bargain and sale where the money is paid by a third person (a). But to that it was answered, that there is not that privity requisite to the raising of an use as is to the bringing of an action. Trinder agreed with Wylde, that where the consideration is an act to be done, if the party for whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asaram v North American Life Insurance Company
...the 17th and 18th centuries repeatedly enforced promises expressly made in favour of an interested person: see Dutton v. Poole [1678] 1 Freem. K.B. 471 approved by Lord Mansfield in Martyn v. Hind [1779] 1 Doug. K.B.142; (iii) that Lord Mansfield held that an undisclosed principal is entitl......