Todd and his Wife against Redford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 1029
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
case 334. todd and his wife against bedford. A declaration in an action of assault and battery by husband and wife, stating that the defendant, on such a day, drove a coach over the wife and bruised her, by reason, whereof the husband laid out divers sums of money for her cure, et alia enormia iisdem intulit ad grave damnum ipsorum, is good, though entire damages be given ; for the per quad is only laid in aggravation and the alia enormia too general to suppose damages given for it. Action of assault and battery is brought by the husband and wife. The declaration set forth, that the defendant on such a day, &c. assaulted Eleanor the wife, and driving a coach over her, bruised her, &c. et ralione inde, the husband laid out diversas denar. summas for the cure, &c. et alia enarmia iisdem intulit ad grave damnum ipsorum. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that his name was Redborn and not Bedford: And on issue, and verdict for the plaintiff, Grove, Serjeant, in arrest of judgment, moved, that in this case the husband and wife should not have joined, because the damage is laid to be for the money laid out in cure of the wife as well as for the battery, and intire damages being given, it is bad for the whole; and cited 1 Sid. 328. Yelv. 106. 2 Vent. 29. 2 Cro. 625. 1 Lev. 3, but the husband should have sued alone for the money laid out in the cure. Raymond for the plaintiff said, he agreed, that the cases cited by Grove were so; but that they are all in actions of assaults committed by husband and wife, and in ibis case the tort is only upon the wife, and the ratione inde, &c. is only consequential damage ; and so was it held in the case of Bussell v. Corn (a), in assault and battery brought by husband and wife, per quod negotia of the husband remanserunt infecta; for there judgment was given for the plaintiff because they held the per quod only consequential damage, which is a case in point; and the alia enormia is not certain enough [265] to have damages, and therefore it is never considered by a jury. Powell, Justice, said, that where husband and wife join in an action of assault and battery for beating both, it is wrong; but it may be helped by a verdict, separating the damages ; and here the git of the action is only the beating of the wife (a), and the ratione iruie is only in aggravation of damages (b). As to the alia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster against Burden
...but does not say " deliberat. ; " and here appears no cause of action, since it is not set forth that the prohibition was delivered. 11 MOD. 264. HILARY TERM, 8 QUEEN ANNE. IN B. R. 1029 This matter was moved last term ; And this term the Court was of opinion, Holt, Chief Justice, being abs......