Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

But the wife shall be considered to be the real and substantial party to the suit (a).

The sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction annulling the marriage ab initio, entirely removes the incapacity of the feme, and renders her responsible as if the ceremony of marriage, (it being void,) had never taken place (b).

There are cases, in which, as an exception to the general rule (c), married women have been allowed to join with their husbands in actions upon certain contracts, or instruments, entered into even during the coverture, and with regard to which the wife is, as it is termed, the meritorious cause of action. Thus, in the instances of an express promise to the wife in consideration of her personal labour and skill, as that she would cure a wound (d); and of a bond (e), or promissory note (ƒ), payable, on the face thereof, respectively (g) to her, or, it seems, to her husband and herself; she may be joined with him in the action, or he may suc alone. And it seems that in these cases, the wife is entitled by survivorship to the money due upon the judgment recovered by both (h).

We have already noticed the cases respecting the effect of a promise of a woman, after her husband's death, to pay a debt contracted by her during coverture (¿).

(a) Laughan v. Bewell, Cro. Car. 67; 10 Mod. 6; Beard v. Webb, 2 B. & P. 93, 101. See 3 Chit. Com. L. 37.

(b) See Anstey v. Manners, 1 Gow. R. 10. As to divorce a mensâ et thoro, ante, 140, 146.

(e) See 1 Chitty Pl. 5th ed. 33; Cosio v. De Bernales, 1 R. & M. 102; ante, 146.

(d) Brashford v. Buckingham, Cro. Jac. 77, 205; Fountain v. Smith, 2 Sid. 128; Weller v. Baker, 2 Wils. 424.

(e) Day v. Pargrave, 2 M. & Selw. 396, note (b).

(f) Philliskirk v. Pluckwell, 2 M. & Selw. 393.

(9) The declaration should expressly shew in what respect the wife has a prominent and particular interest enabling her to join. Bidgood v. Way, 2 Bla. R. 1236; Philliskirk v. Pluckwell, 2M. & Selw.396. In the case of a bond or note expressly payable to her, or to both, it would sufficiently appear, from the instrument itself, if set out truly in

the declaration, without further averment, that she had a particular interest, id. Where husband and wife declared for a debt due for a cure effected by the wife during coverture, and the declaration also contained a charge for medicine supplied; upon general demurrer, it was held that the wife was improperly joined, as she was not the sole cause of action; the medicines being the property of the husband only. Holmes and Wife v. Wood, cited in 2 Wils. 424; noticed by Lord Ellenborough, in 3 M. & Selw. 396. The husband may declare alone on a note made to his wife during coverture, alleging it was payable to him, Arnold v. Revoult, 4 Moore, 71, 72.

(h) 1 Chit. Pl. 5th ed. 36; Co. Lit. 351 a, n. (1); Bidgood v. Way, 2 Bla. R. 1239. And it seems she takes by survivorship money due on a decree in chancery in a suit by both. Adams v. Lavender. M'Clel. & Y. 41.

(i) Ante, 41.

A married woman may be an executrix or administratrix. And where a married woman, being executrix, took a note from her husband and A. B. during coverture, for money lent by her in her representative character to her husband, it was held that she might, after her husband's death, sue A. B. upon the note (k).

6thly. OF CONTRACTS WITH ALIENS.

A alien ami or friend, may legally enter into a contract with a subject of this realm, either here or abroad, and may, during peace, maintain an action thereon in the English courts (1). But the contract of an alien enemy is absolutely void, and cannot be enforced by him, or any person in trust for his benefit, either at law or in equity (m); unless he came into this country sub salvo conducto, or live here by the king's licence (n). If an alien enemy were allowed to sue in the English courts, on a contract made by him before or during his disability, he would be enabled to withdraw from this country, resources which might be rendered, and converted to purposes, injurious to its interests. It is on this ground that contracts during war, and trading with an enemy, are illegal (o); and, therefore, not only is an alien enemy unable to sue in this country on a contract made by him, but the contract is not available even against him, in favour of an Englishman, though made abroad; and being void, if made during war, the return of peace does not afford the latter any ground of action (p): but the right of action is only suspended until the return of peace, if the contract were made before the commencement of the war (q). An alien enemy cannot sue a party who holds his property in this country; and therefore, a bill drawn by the alien upon, and accepted by, such party, and indorsed by the alien to an Englishman aware of the circumstances, cannot be enforced by the latter, against the acceptor (r).

(k) Richards v. Richards, 2 B. & Ad. 447.

(1) Bac. Ab., Aliens (D): but he cannot take a lease of houses, &c., 32 Hen. 8, c. 16; Jevens v. Hurridge, 1 Saund. 8, note (1); and see 1 Bla. C. 366; 2 id., 400, 274, and notes, Chitty's ed. (m) Brandon v. Nesbitt, 6 T. R. 23; Albretch v. Sussman, 2 Ves. & B. 323. (n) Id.; Wells v. Williams, 1 Salk. 46; Boulton v. Dobree, 2 Camp. 163. See Chitty's, jun. Prerog. 48, 49. As to forfeiture to the crown of debt to

alien, id., 43; Wolf v. Oxholm, 6 M. & Selw. 102, 103, per Lord Ellenborough.

(0) Potts v. Bell, 8 T. R. 548; The Hoop, 1 Rob. R. 196; Furtado v. Rodgers, 3 B. & P. 200.

(p) Willison v. Patteson, 7 Taunt. 439; 1 Moore, 133, S. C.

(q) Ex parte Boussmaker, 13 Ves. 71; Flindt v. Waters, 15 East, 260; 3 Chitty Com. L. 58, 59.

(r) Willison v. Patteson, 7 Taunt. 439; 1 Moore, 133, S. C.

So, where an Englishman permanently resides, and is proved to be voluntarily domiciled in a foreign land, the government of which is at war with this country, he so far loses the rights of an Englishman, that he cannot sue in our courts (s). But an action may be maintained here by a neutral on a promissory note, given to him by a British subject in an enemy's country, for goods sold there. Lord Ellenborough said, "The contracting parties were not alien enemies, and it does not follow that the contract was void, though made in an enemy's country. The plaintiffs, who are domiciled in Switzerland, might lawfully sell their goods in Paris; and it is not proved that the defendant, who is a British subject, purchased them there for any illegal purpose (t)." And it appears that an Englishman domiciled in a foreign state, in amity with this country, may lawfully exercise the privileges of a subject of the place where he is resident, to trade with a nation in hostility with this (u). So a native of a foreign state, in amity with this country, taken in an act of hostility on board an enemy's fleet, and brought to England as a prisoner of war, is not disabled from suing, even during his confinement, on a contract entered into by him as such prisoner (x).

Nor can an Englishman, a prisoner at war in an enemy's country, be deemed an alien enemy. Therefore, a bill drawn by such prisoner for his support, on an Englishman in this country, and indorsed to an alien enemy, is available in the hands of the latter upon the cessation of hostilities (y).

7thly. OUTLAWS, AND PERSONS ATTAINTED.

A person outlawed in a criminal prosecution, or civil suit (≈); or attainted of certain crimes (a), is civiliter mortuus: he loses the protection of the law, and forfeits his goods and chattels, and choses in action, to the crown (b). Consequently he cannot sue on a contract, and where there is no remedy, there is no obligation or right; so that, in effect, he is incapacitated from contracting

(s) M'Connell v. Hector, 3 B. & P. 113; The Ocean, 5 Rob. 90; The Indian Chief, 3 id., 22; O'Mealey v. Wilson, 1 Camp. 482; Roberts v. Hardy, 3 M. & Selw. 533.

(t) Houriet v. Morris, 3 Camp. 303. (u) Bell v. Reid, 1 M. & Selw. 726. (x) Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne, 1 B. & Pul. 163; The King v. Depardo, 1 Taunt. 28.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

for his own benefit (c). Such a person may acquire, but he cannot enjoy; he may acquire, not by virtue of any capacity in himself, but because, if a gift be made to him, the donor cannot make his own act void, and reclaim his own gift; and as the donor cannot do this, and as the attainted donee cannot enjoy, the thing vests in the crown by its prerogative (d).

But the right of the outlaw, or party attainted, to the protection of the law, is only suspended, not irrevocably lost. The disability may be removed by a pardon, or reversal of the outlawry or attainder; and, as a matter of course, the competency to contract, and right to sue, revive (e).

There can be no doubt, that a party may be sued on a contract made by him whilst he stood outlawed or attainted, although his own incapacity has not been removed (ƒ).

8thly.-BANKRupts.

1.-Of the Effect of a Bankrupt's Certificate, in regard to Contracts made by him before his Bankruptcy.

2. Of his Subsequent Promise to Pay his Prior Debts. 3. Of the Contracts of a Bankrupt whilst uncertificated.

1. Of Contracts before the Bankruytcy.

The certificate of a bankrupt discharges him, but not his partner or a joint contractor (g), from all debts and demands which the creditor has proved, or might have proved, under the commission (h). The creditor's inability to prove his debt, and the continuing responsibility of the bankrupt, are convertible terms; the privilege of the former, and the discharge of the latter, are co-extensive and commensurate (i).

(c) Bullock v. Dobbs, 2 B. & Ald. 258. (d) Id. See Co. Lit. 2 (C); The King v. The Inhabitants of Haddenham, 15 East, 465.

(e) Bac. Ab., Outlawry (D) ; 1 Chit. Crim. L. 731; 2nd ed.

(f) Macdonald v. Ramsay, Fost. Cr. L. 61.

(9) Before the statute 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 9, if one of several debtors became a bankrupt and obtained his certificate, it was necessary to join him as a defendant, or the defendant might have pleaded the non-joinder

in abatement. But by that statute it is rendered unnecessary to join the bankrupt in such case: and, if the nonjoinder be pleaded in abatement, the bankruptcy and certificate may be replied.

(h) 6 G. 4, c. 16, ss. 121, 126. See the Bankrupt Court Act, 1 & 2 W. 4,

c. 56.

(i) Ex parte Groome, 1 Atk. 119; Chilton v. Whiffin, 3 Wils. 13; Cowley v. Dunlop, 7 T. R. 565; per Tindal, C. J., in Aflalo v. Fourdrinier, 3 M. & P. 748; 6 Bing. 306, S. C.

It is also a general rule that if a debt may be proved under a commission, the bankrupt, when certificated, is not only discharged from liability for such debt, but also from any consequential damages, resulting or arising from the non-payment thereof (k). And, if a creditor has obtained judgment at law, or a decree in equity, for a debt or demand in respect of which he proves under the commission, he may prove also for the costs he has incurred, although not taxed at the time of the bankruptcy (1). To detail the various demands which a creditor may prove under a commission, would be to digress from the nature and object of this treatise. It may, however, with propriety, be briefly noticed, that a creditor may prove, not only a debt which accrued due to him before the act of bankruptcy, but also a debt, or demand, really and bonâ fide contracted after the act of bankruptcy, and before the commission was issued; if the creditor had not, at the time the same was contracted, notice of any act of bankruptcy by such bankrupt committed (m). And persons, who have given credit to the bankrupt, upon valuable consideration, for any money, or other matter or thing whatsoever, which shall not have become payable when such bankrupt committed an act of bankruptcy; and whether such credit shall have been given upon any bill, bond, note, or other negotiable security, or not; may prove such debt, or negotiable security, as if the same were payable presently, and receive dividends, equally with the other creditors, deducting a debate of interest (n).

Any person, who, at the time of issuing the commission, shall be surety, or liable for any debt of the bankrupt (0), or bail for the bankrupt, either to the sheriff or to the action, may, if he shall have paid the debt, or any part thereof in discharge of the whole debt, (although he may have paid the same, after the commission issued), if the creditor shall have proved his debt under the commission, stand in the place of such creditor, as to the dividends, and other rights upon such proof; or if the creditor shall not have proved under the commission, may prove his demand in respect of such payment, as a debt under the commission, not

(k) Van Sandau v. Corsbie, 3 B. & Ald. 13. See id., 288.

(1) 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 58.

(m) 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 47. It will be observed, that this act, unlike the former statutes, makes no mention of notice of insolvency only. As to con

structive notice of an act of bankruptcy, see id., sec. 83; Eden, 2nd ed.

121.

(n) Id., sec. 51. See Archb. Bk. L. 68, 69.

(0) A solvent partner who pays the debt of the firm after the bankruptcy

« ElőzőTovább »