Woodward v Walton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1807 |
| Date | 16 June 1807 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 715
Common Pleas Division
2 BOS. & 01. R.) 476. WOODWARD V. WALTON' 715 being liable to have judgment signed, has bound himself, and may plead that obligation. I do not think, however, that better [476] evidence of the judgment could assist the Defendant. What is said of Purses case cannot be law. If an action be brought against Barber, and he suffer judgment by default or confession, how can that discharge an action against the Defendant I the Plaintiff has a right to sue every one of the makers of this note to judgment; though it is true that he cannot have satisfaction more than once. And whether the judgment against Barber were obtained by cognovit or in any other way Call make no difference. The other Judges concurring, Rule discharged. fro - WOODWARD V. WALTON. June 16th, 1807. An action for debauching the Plaintiff's daughter, per quod servitium amisit, is an action of trespass, and a count for that purpose may be joined with a count for breaking and entering the house (a). Trespass. The first count of the declaration stated that the Defendant with force and arms, broke and entered the dwelling-house of the Plaintiff, and then and there assaulted, debauched, and carnally knew the Plaintiff's daughter, and got her with child, whereby the Plaintiff' lost her service. The second count omitted the breaking and entering the dwelling-house, but stated that the Plaintiff, with force and arms, assaulted, debauched, &c. the Plaintiff's daughter, &c. per quad servitiurn amisit. At the trial before Sir James Mansfield Ch. J. at the last Bedford assizes, a verdict having been found for the Plaintiff; a rule was obtained calling on the Plaintiff to show cause why judgment should not be arrested on the ground of a rnisjoirider of action, it being contended that the second count was the subject of an action on the case. (477] Sellon Serjt.. showed cause. The subject-matter of both the counts of this declaration is trespass and the Plaintiff could not have sued upon either of them in any other form of action. It is said indeed by Buller J. in Bennet v. Alcoa, 2 T. R. 167, that "an action merely for debauching a man's daughter, by which he loses her service, is an action on the case. But according to Bolt's opinion, where the offence is accompanied with an illegal entry of the father's house, he has his election either to bring trespass for breaking and entering, and lay the debauching of the daughter and loss of her service as consequential ; or he may bring the action on the case merely for debauching his daughter per quad servitium amisit." The case, however, of Russet v. Corns, 2 Ld. Raym. 1302, in which the opinion of Lord Holt, alluded to by Mr. J. Buller, is to be found, does not warrant his proposition. Lord Holt says, " a man cannot maintain an action against another for assaulting his daughter, and getting her with child ; but he may maintain an action against another for entering his house and assaulting and getting his daughter with child per quod servitium amisit, and that is a great aggravation ;" but he does not say that if he omit to allege an entry of the house he may maintain an action on the case. The only object of Lord Holt's position is to show, that trespass will lie for some things jointly with others, when it would not lie without them. He states, therefore, that an allegation either of breaking and entering, per quad servitium amisit, is necessary. " As a man may have an action of trespass for entering his house and beating his servant, without saying per quad servitium amisit, because the beating the servant is part of the same trespass, and only a description of it by way of aggravation ; but if he lay it (that is the beating of the servant) in another count at another day, it will he ill, without saying per quod servitium amisit." This plainly shows his opinion, that a count (478] for the beating only per quad servitium amisit, might be joined with a count in trespass for breaking and entering. So in Davis v. Stannion, 2 Ld. Rap:a, 1042, Powell J. speaks of the action by the master for beating...
To continue reading
Request your trial