Sparkes and Others against Bell and Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1828 |
| Date | 23 April 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 943
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 206. Questioned, Lockwood v. Salter, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 311. See Chubb v. Stretch, 1870, L. R. 9 Eq. 560.
REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of KING'S BENCH. By RICHARD YAUGHAN BARNEWALL, of Lincoln's Inn, and CRESSWELL CRESSWELL, of the Inner Temple, Esqrs. Barristers at Law. Yol. YIII. Containing the Cases of Easter, Trinity, and Michaelmas Terms, in the 9th Year of GEORGE IY. 1828. [1] cases argued and determined in the court of king's bench, in easter term, in the ninth year of the reign of george IV. sparkes and others against bell and wife. Wednesday, April 23d, 1828. A married woman, taken in execution together with her husband for a debt due from her before marriage, is not entitled to be discharged, unless it appears that she has no separate property, even although the husband has been discharged under the Insolvent Act. [S. C. 6 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 206. Questioned, LockwooA v. Salter, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 311. See Chubb v. Stretch, 1870, L. E. 9 Eq. 560.] A rule nisi had been obtained to discharge an order made by Bayley J. for discharging Sarah Bell out of custody, she having been taken in execution, together with her husband, on a ca. sa. issued against them, and for issuing a new writ of ca. sa. against her. By the affidavits it appeared that Sarah Bell before her intermarriage with the other defendant carried on the business of a baker at Exeter, and became indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 1001. and upwards. In February 1827 she married the other defendant, having previously conveyed a house and other premises, in which she had an estate for her own life, her furniture and stock in trade, to a trustee for her separate use. [2] Soon after the marriage the plaintiffs commenced an action against the two defendants for the recovery of the 1001. due, and arrested them both, whereupon they gave bail. The husband was soon afterwards arrested for another debt, and committed to prison, and he and his wife suffered judgment by default in the action brought by the plaintiffs, and afterwards a ca. sa. was issued, upon which the husband, then in custody, was charged in execution, and Sarah Bell was committed to the same prison. An order for her discharge was made by Bayley J., and the husband afterwards obtained his discharge as an insolvent debtor. The affidavits in answer did not deny the allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v Jones
...the judgment of an inferior court not of record. An action will no doubt lie upon the [629] decree of a colonial court: Henley \. Sojier (8 B. & C. 1(5 ; 2 Man. & Ky. 153) ; or upon an Irish judgment: Harris v. Saunders (4 B. & C. 411); but it never has been expressly decided that any actio......
-
Lockwood and Another against Thomas Salter and Sarah his Wife
...M. 128): and execution against her will be enforced by the Court, unless it appears that she has no separate property, SparJces v. Sell (8 B. & C. 1). In Pitts v. Heller (2 Stra. 1167), and Finch v. Duddin (ibid. 1237), the wife being taken in execution in an action against husband and wife......
-
Cheston and Others, Assignees of Charles Savin and Eugene Le Roy, Bankrupts v Gibbs and Another
...of the bankruptcy and commission-the Court declining to decide whether the sheriff was a wrongdoer or not by the sale : Notley v. fuck (8 B. & C. 1 GO ; 2 Man & Ry. 68). Subsequently an action for money had and received was brought agciinst the sheriff, who had no uotice of the bankruptcy, ......
-
Richmond against Smith
...to have them in the public room; it is, therefore, but reasonable that he, and not the landlord, should suffer by the loss that ensued. 8B.&C.1L j PENNY VJ FOY 94B Lord Tenterdeh C.J. I am of opinion that we ought not to grant a rule on the ground of the supposed mis-direction in this case.......