Delaval v. . Clare

Decided July 5, 1793

Court of King's Bench · decided 1793-07-05

Decided 1793-07-05

¶1CURIA assented to both points.

¶2There is no necessity here for an averment, that the apparel was convenient and suitable to the rank of the infant, for the plaintiff did not provide the materials for the suit, but only the lining, etc., and made it up. M. 3, Jac., C. B. If there be a guardian in soccage, and a copyhold escheat to the infant, the guardian may grant it over. F. N. B., 143. Guardian in soccage may grant the ward over. Novel Entry, 125, 126; Jones, 146; Roll., 729; Noy, 85; Bendl., 186.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: Case against an infant, because he put cloth at the shop of the plaintiff, who was a tailor, to make a suit of clothes, and promised to give him, etc., as well for making it as for providing the trimmings, etc., as he really ought to have. On this promise the plaintiff brought an action on the case. The defendant comes in and says that it is true that he made such a promise, but he was then under the government of A., and he made such a promise for him, absque hoc that he made such a promise; and after a verdict for the plaintiff, *exception was taken to the declaration, that an action on the case lies not against an infant, for in it damages are recovered; and if an infant be bound in a paenal obligation, it is bad, although it be for eating and drinking. Hutchins, etc., M. 17, Jac., B.R. rot. , 1574. Blackston's case . A brewer of London brought an action on the case against an infant for drink which he sold him for so much, and it was adjudged maintainable. Here the plea of the infant is repugnant, for he confesses the promise and traverses the consideration.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Court of King's Bench

Abolished 1873