And if such Debts were not justly to be so demanded and paid it had been against the Iudges Oath to pass such Iudgments for the Defendant is not bound to Demurr but leaves the Iustice of the Plaintiffs demand to the Court. In Decimo H. 6. Cotsmore 10 H. 6. f. 24. b. 25. a. who gave the Rule in the Case in question hath these words The Law will not charge Executors with a duty due by a simple Contract made by the Testator Then if such Action be brought against Executors upon a simple Contract made by the Testator and they will not take advantage at the beginning of the Pleas in abatement of the Writ but plead other matter which is found against them they never shall have advantage to shew that before Judgment that is in Arrest of Judgment and that I have known adjudg'd in this place once before this time Here is not only his own Opinion but a Iudgment by him cited in that Court formerly in the point I shall add another Case to this purpose A man brought a Writ of Debt against another 15 E. 4. f. 29. 2. and counted that he sold certain Goods to his Testator for the Sum in demand Littleton caus'd the Attorney of the Plaintiff as printed but should be Defendant to be demanded and so he was and Littleton demanded of him Si'l voyl avoyder son Suite not his own but his who counted against him que dit que voyl and after Littleton said to the Attorney of the Plaintiff The Court awards that you take nothing by the Writ for know that a man shall never have an Action against Executors where the Testator might have wag'd his Law in his life time quod nota It was not proper to ask the Plaintiffs Attorney Whether he would avoid his Clyents Suit and an unlikely answer of his to say Yes but a rational demand to the Defendants Attorney Whether he would avoid his Suit who counted against him and probably he should answer Yes and after Littleton said to the Attorney of the Plaintiff the Court awards you take nothing by your Writ If he had been the person to whom the question was first asked and who immediately before had answer'd Yes the Book had not been that after Littleton said to the Attorney of the Plaintiff but that Littleton said to him who was the same he discours'd with The Print thus rectified this Case agrees with the Law deliver'd by Cotsmore An Executor is sued and declared against in Court for so was the Course then upon a simple Contract of his Testators the Iudge asks his Attorney Whether he had a mind to avoid the Suit who answer'd Yes If the Iudge had thought fit he might have avoided the Suit without making any question but knowing it was not consonant to Law to avoid a Suit upon a simple Contract unless the Executor himself desired it He therefore asked him the Question and finding he did desire it the Iudge presently told the Plaintiffs Attorney He could take nothing by the Writ Else you see the Consequence of this Iudgment That the Iudges ex officio should prevent any Iudgment for the Plaintiff in Debt brought upon a simple Contract against an Executor whether the Executor would or not against former and subsequent usage Brook in Abridging this Case and not reflecting upon it rightly abridges it that Littleton demanded the Plaintiffs Attorney If he would avow his Suit whereas the word is clearly avoid not avow and to what purpose should he ask that Question for sure it was avow'd as much as could be when counted upon at the instant in Court Then Brook makes a Note Br. Executor pl. 80. Nota cest Judgment ex officio And this Note of Brooks mis-led the Lord Anderson once to the same mistake if the Report be right but the like hath not been before or since Rob. Hughson's Case Gouldsboroughs Rep. 30 Eliz. f. 106. 107. An Action was brought against an Administrator upon a Contract of the Intestates who pleaded fully administred and found against him Anderson said that ex officio the Court was to stay Iudgment and did so because the Administrator was not chargeable upon a simple Contract But since that Case of Hughson one Germayne brought an action of Debt against Rolls as Executor of Norwood for Fees as an Attorney in the Common Bench and for soliciting in the Queens Bench Germayne versus Rolls 37 38 El. Cro. 425. pl. 24. and for mony expended about a Fine for Alienation Rolls pleaded Ne unque Executor which was found against him and Judgment given Vpon which Rolls brought a Writ of Error and the Error assign'd was That the Action lay not against an Executor because the Testator could have waged his Law But it was resolv'd That for Attorney's Fees the Testator could not wage his Law but for the rest he might and that the Executor might have demurr'd at first but pleading a Plea found against him it was said he was Concluded some difference of Opinion was But agreed That the Executor confessing the Action or pleading nil debet in such Case and that found against him he hath no remedy And Popham remembred Hughson's Case in the Common Pleas and would see the Roll for he doubted that both in that Case and this of Germayne the Executor had not confessed the Debt in effect But after it was moved again and all the Judges Hill 38 Eliz. Cro. 459. pl. 4. but Gawdy were of Opinion that the Judgment was well given as to that Cause but it was revers'd for a Cause not formerly mov'd which was That an Action of Debt would not have layn against the Testator himself for part of the mony in demand and recovered that is for the mony for soliciting which was not a certain Debt but to be recovered by Action on the Case Some Cases in the Old Books may seem to colour this Opinion That the Judges ex officio in an Action of Debt brought against an Executor or Administrator for a simple Contract of the Testators or Intestate ought to abate the Writ 25 E. 3. f. 40. The first is 25 E. 3. f. 40. where an Action was brought against an Executor upon a Tally struck by the Testator The Iudges said Nil Capiat per breve if he have no better specialty 12 H. 4. f. 23. The like Case is 12 H. 4. f. 23. where a like Action was brought against the Executor or Administrator upon a Tally of the Testators and there it appears the Defendants Council would have demurr'd and the Cause is mentioned That the writing of the Tally might be washed out by water and a new put in the place and the Notches chang'd and the Iudgment was Nil capiat per breve This being the same Case with the former the reason of the Iudgment was the same of grounding an Action upon a Specialty not good in Law Besides it appears in the latter
power lawfully not to abate it and us'd that last lawful power and not the first and wrong'd none in using it To this may be added That the Iudgment upon a simple Contract is the Act of the Court and compulsory to the Executor and he hath then no Election but must obey the Iudgment In conclusion though it were agreed That in the Action of Debt brought by Allington upon a simple Contract Iudgment ought not to have been given against the Defendant being Administrator but the Writ should have abated because the Administrator was not chargeable And though the Iudgment given were erroneous and for that cause reversible yet standing in force unrevers'd It is a good Barr to the Plaintiffs Action But lest this should countenance Iudges abating the Writ ex officio in such Actions brought or Plaintiffs to bring Error upon Iudgments given in such Actions I conceive the Law is clear That Iudges ought not ex officio to abate such Writ nor otherwise than when the Executor or Administrator Defendant in such Action demurrs and demands Judgment of the Writ and that Iudgment given against such Defendants not demurring to the Writ is not Erroneous unless for other cause If it be urg'd further That though a Iudgment obtain'd upon a simple Contract be a barr to an Action of Debt brought after upon an Obligation or to an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit to pay mony as the present Case is Yet it should not barr if the Action upon which it was obtain'd were commenc'd pending a former Action upon an Obligation or upon an Assumpsit for mony in which the Intestate could not have waged his Law The answer is as before such Iudgment barrs until revers'd if admitted to be reversible as it is not But the Law is setled That wheresoever an Action of Debt upon Bond or Contract is brought against a man he may lawfully confess the Action and give way to a Judgment if there be no fraud in the Case although he have perfect notice of such former Suit depending nor is there any restraint or limit of time for confessing an Action brought upon a simple Contract more than upon a Bond. And to satisfie any Debt upon Obligation 5 H. 7. f. 27. b. Moore Scarleâ— Case f. 678. Crook 38 El. f. 462. Green Wilcocks Case before a Iudgment so obtain'd is a Devastavit in the Executor or Administrator and so it is to satisfie any latter Judgment if there be not assets to satisfie the first also So are the express Books to those points of 5 H. 7. per Curiam and Scarles his Case in Moore and Green and Wilcock's Case in Crook Eliz. Yet in 25 Eliz. when an Action of Debt for 100 l. was brought against an Executor in C. B. and pending that Debt was brought against him in B. R. for 100 l. which latter he confess'd and the Iudgment there had pleaded in Barr to the first Action And upon Question if the Plea were good Fenner and Walmesley held it good but Anderson Mead Wyndham and Periam argued to the contrary and that he ought to have pleaded the first Action pending to the second Action brought The Arguments of both sides you may see in Moore f. 173. Moore 25 El. f. 173. where it is left a Quere the Iudges doubting the Case but since the Law is taken That the Iudgment is a good barr to the first Action It will be still objected That if the Law be that Executors or Administrators may pay debts upon simple Contracts of the deceas'd to which they are not bound and thereby prevent the payment of a debt to which they are bound It is repugnant to Reason and consequently cannot be Law for that is in effect at the same time to be bound and not bound to pay For he who may not pay being bound is not bound at all For clearing this we must know Though Executors or Administrators are not compell'd by the Common Law to answer Actions of Debt for simple Contracts yet the Law of the Land obligeth payment of them For 1. Vpon committing Administration Oath is taken to administer the Estate of the dead duely which cannot be without paying his debts 2. Oath is taken to make true accompt of the Administration to the Ordinary and of what remains after all Debts Funeral Charges and just Expences of every sort deducted 3. This appears also by the Statute of 31 E. 3. c. 11. That Administrators are to administer and dispend for the Soul of the Dead and to answer to other to whom the dead persons were holden and bound which they cannot better do than by paying their debts And as this was the ancient Law and practise before in the Spiritual Court so by the new Act in 22 and 23 of the King for the better settling of Intestates Estates It is enacted accordingly that upon the Administrators accompt deductions be made of all sorts of debts This appears to be the ancient Law by the Great Charter c. 18. and long before by Glanvill in Henry the Second's time and Bracton in Henry the Third's time 4. And by Fitz-herbert in the Writ de rationabili parte bonorum the debts are to be deducted before division to the wife and children And upon the Executors accompt all the Testators debts are to be allow'd before payment of Legacies which were unjust if the payment of them were not due as appears by Doctor and Student Executors be bound to pay Debts before Legacies by the Law of Reason and by the Law of God for Reason wills that they should do first that is best for the Testator that is to pay debts which he was bound to pay before Legacies which he was not bound to give 2. It is better for the Testator his Debts should be paid Doct. Stud. l. 2. c. 11. for not payment of which his Soul shall suffer pain but none for not performing his Legacy The Ordinary upon the accompt L. 2. c. 10. f. 158 in all the Cases before rehears'd will regard much what is best for the Testator And I conceive the Ordinary may inforce the payment of Debts upon Contracts as well as Legacies or Marriage mony and no Prohibition lyes An Executor or Administrator may retain for his own satisfaction a Debt by single Contract due from the Testator or Intestate which he could not do unless the payment were lawful If at the Common Law the Executors payments of Debts upon simple Contracts were not just Why have the Iudges in all Ages given Judgment for the Plaintiffs unless the Defendant either Demurrs in the Commencement of the Plea or avoids the Debt by special matter pleaded and put in issue but he shall never in such case either Arrest the Iudgement or bring Error after Iudgment for that Cause And so it is agreed for Law in Read and Norwoods Case in Plowden where the Iudges had view of numerous Iudgments in that kind as there appears
the Intestate owing by him at the time of his death The Plaintiff taking by protestation that nothing alledg'd by the Defendant was true Demurrs upon the Plea The Causes offer'd to maintain the Demurrer are these 1. That one of the Iudgments pleaded in Barr obtain'd by William Allington in the Court of London before the Mayor c. against the Defendant for 2670 l. 17 s. 7 d. due to the said Allington by the Intestate Everard was not duly obtained and is insufficient to Barr the Plaintiff 2. That the Defendants special Plea in Barr appearing in any part of it to be false and insufficient the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment for his whole debt 1. For the first Cause it was urg'd as an Exception to the Defendants Plea That by the Plea it appears that time out of mind a Court hath been held in the City of London before the Mayor and Aldermen of all personal Actions arising and growing within the said City And that the Intestate was at the time of his death indebted to the said Allington at London within the Parish and Ward of St. Mary Bow and Cheapside But it is not alledg'd That the said debt did arise and grow due in London within the said Parish and Ward for wheresoever the debt did arise and grow due yet the debtor is indebted to the creditor in any place where he is as long as the debt is unpaid And therefore to say The Intestate was indebted to Allington in the said Sum apud London c. affirms not that the debt did arise and grow due at London and if not the Court had no Iurisdiction of the Cause The effect of the Defendants Barr is only to shew That such a Judgment was obtain'd in such a Court against him and not to set forth the whole Record of obtaining it for it were vast Expence of time and mony so to do as often as occasion is to mention a Record and referrs to the Record prout per Recordum plenius liquet where the Plaintiff may take advantage of any defect therein But if that were necessary it is well set forth for his Plea is Et praedictus Willielmus Allington tunc ibidem in eadem Curia secundum consuetudinem Civitatis praedictae affirmabat contra praedictum Rolandum Dee ut Administratorem c. quandam billam originalem de placito debiti c. And the Custome being to hold Plea of personal Actions arising within the City if he affirmed a Bill of Debt according to the Custome It must be of a debt arising and growing due within the City 2. A second Exception was That it is not set forth for what the debt was whereby the Court may judge whether it were payable or not by the Administrator To this it was answer'd That the course in London is for the Plaintiff to declare that the Debtor being indebted to him at such a time and place Concessit solvere such a Sum to him at such a time for they enter not there at large as at Westminster all the pleading and the City Customes have been often confirmed by Parliament and if Exception be taken to the Jurisdiction it must come from the Defendant However that will not avoid the Iudgment and is but Error 3. A third Exception was It is not set forth that the Intestate was indebted to Allington in his own right But it must be intended if he were indebted to him by Law that it was in his own right 4. A fourth Exception was That the Defendant pleads Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff quod recuperaret debitum praedictum where the Iudgment should be quod recuperet It is not the Defendants concern to recite the words of the Iudgment as it was given by the Court but the effect of it relating to the Defendant and so it is more proper to say Iudgment was given quod recuperaret The Court say ideo consideratum est per Curiam but he who relates what they did saith ideo consideratum fuit per Curiam But my Book is quod recuperet 5. A fifth Exception was That the Plea sets forth the Action was brought against the Defendant Dee in London as Administrator of the Intestate omitting durante minori aetate Caroli Everard filii That will not avoid the Iudgment Rolls Good Pincents Case Tit. Executors f. 910. 14 Car. 1. B.R. Piggots Case 5 Rep. though the Minor were of Age sufficient to administer himself nor is it of prejudice to any as was resolved in the Case of one Pincent But if an Administrator durante minori aetate brings an Action he must averr the Administrator or Executor to be under the Age of Seventeen years 6. Sixthly it was urg'd as resolv'd in Turners Case Turners Case 8. Rep. f. 132. That the Recital of Allingtons Declaration in London not mentioning the Debt to be per scriptum obligatorium it shall not be intended to be so And it was urg'd as resolv'd in that Case of Turner also That it being a Debt but by simple Contract the Administrator was not chargeable with it That is a Resolution in Turners Case supernumerary and not necessary to support the Iudgment given and consequently no Iudicial Resolution for the Iudgment given in Turners Case was well given because the Iudgments given before the Mayor of Cicester pleaded in barr of the Plaintiffs Action were resolv'd to be coram non Judice because it appear'd not that the Mayor of Cicester had any Iurisdiction to hold Plea by Patent or Prescription But admitting that an Executor or Administrator according to that Resolution is not chargeable if by chargeable be meant compellable at the Common Law in an Action of Debt brought upon a simple Contract of the Testator or Intestate to pay such Debt what would it avail the Plaintiff in that Case or can in this Case unless the Resolution had been That though the Iurisdiction of the Court of Cicester had been well set forth yet a Iudgment there obtain'd against the Executor upon a simple Contract of the Testators had been no Barr in an Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation of the Testators But there is no such Resolution there for a Iudgment obtain'd upon such a simple Contract is as much a Iudgment when had as any other upon Obligations and the Books and use are clear That Judgments must be satisfied before Debts due by Obligation It is true it is a Waste of the Goods of the Dead in the Executor to pay voluntarily a Debt by simple Contract before a Debt by Obligation whereof he had notice and not otherwise in that Case But no man ever thought it a Devastavit in the Executor to satisfie a Iudgment obtain'd upon a simple Contract before a Debt due by Obligation Yet I shall agree the Executor by the Common Law might have prevented this Iudgment by abating the Plaintiffs Writ at first which he had power lawfully to do but he had equal
by the party This difference is very material for if the Father could devise the Land in trust for him until his Son came to One and twenty as he can grant the Custody then as in other Cases of Leases for years the Land undoubtedly should go to the Executor or Administrator of him whom the Father named for the tuition and the trust should follow the Land as in other Cases where Lands are convey'd in trust But when he cannot ex directo devise the Land in trust then the Land follows the Custody and not the Custody the Land and the Land must go as the Custody can go and not the Custody as the Land can go Coke Litt. f. 49. a. 1 H. 7. 28. 8 H. 7. 4. As where a House or Land belongs to an Office or a Chamber to a Corody the Office or Corody being granted by Deed the House and Land follows as incident or belonging without Livery because the Office is the principal and the Land but pertaining to it A second Consideration is That by this Act no new custody is instituted but the office of Guardian as to the duty and power of the place is left the same as the Law before had prescrib'd and setled of Guardian in Soccage But the modus habendi of that office is alter'd by this Act in two Circumstances The first 1. It may be held for a longer time viz. to the Age of the Heir of One and twenty where before it was but to Fourteen 2. It may be by other persons held for before it was the next of Kindred not inheritable could have it now who the Father names shall have it So it is as if an Office grantable for life only before should be made grantable for years by Parliament or grantable before to any person should be made grantable but to some kind of persons only The Office as to the Duty of it and its essence is the same it was But the Modus habendi alter'd If therefore this new Guardian is the same in Office and Interest with the former Guardian in Soccage and varies from it only in the Modus habendi then the Ward hath the same legal Remedy against this Guardian as was against the old But if this be a new Office of Guardianship differing in its nature from the other the Heir hath no remedy against him at all in Law For though this new Guardian be enabled to have such Actions as the old might have yet this Act enables not the Heir to have like Actions or any other against him as he might against the Guardian in Soccage The Intent of this Statute is to priviledge the Father against common right to appoint the Guardian of his Heir and the time of his Wardship under One and twenty But leaves the Heirs of all other Ancestors Wards in Soccage as before Therefore I hold 1. That such a Special Guardian cannot transferr the Custody of the Ward by Deed or will to any other 2. That he hath no different Interest from a Guardian in Soccage but for the time of the Wardship 1. When an Act of Parliament alteâ—s the Common Law the meaning shall not be strained beyond the words except in Cases of publick Vtility when the end of the Act appears to be larger than the enacting words But by the words the Father only can appoint the Guardian therefore the Guardian so appointed cannot appoint another Guardian 2. The Mother hath the same concern for her Heir as the Father hath But she cannot by the Act name a Guardian therefore much less can the Guardian named by the Father 3. The Father cannot by the Act give the custody to a Papist but if it may be transferr'd over by him whom the Father names or by Act in Law go to his Executor or Administrator it may come to a Papist against the meaning of the Act. 4. Offices or Acts of personal Trust cannot be assign'd for the Trust is not personal which any man may have Dyer 2 3 Eliz. f. 189. b. 5. At the Common Law none could have the Custody and Marriage of a mans Son and Heir apparent from the Father yet the Father could not grant or sell the Custody and Marriage of his Heir apparent though the marriage was to his own benefit as was resolved by the greater number of the Iudges in the Lord Bray's Case who by Indenture had sold for Eight hundred pounds the Custody and Marriage of his Son and Heir apparent in the time of Henry the Eighth to the Lord Audley Chancellor of England Lord Cromwell Lord Privy Seal Sir William Paulett Treasurer of the Houshold The Marquis of Winchester Lord Treasurer Dyer supra f. 190. b. pl. 19. The Reason given is That the Father hath no Interest to be granted or sold to a Stranger in his eldest Son but it is inseparably annex'd to the person of the Father Two Judges differ'd because an Action of Trespass would lye for taking away a mans Heir apparent and marrying him whence they conclude he might be granted as a Chattel 11 H. 4. f. 23. a. Fitz. N. Br. Tresp f. 90. b. Lett. G. f. 89. Lett. O. But an Action of Trespass will lye for taking away ones Servant For taking away a Monk where he was cloyster'd in Castigationem Pro Uxore abducta cum bonis Viri yet none of these are assignable West 1. c. 48. By the Statute of Westminster the First If the Guardian in Chivalry made a Feoffment of the Wards Lands in his Custody during his Minority the Heir might forthwith have a Writ of Novel Disseisin against the Guardian and Tenant and the Land recover'd should be deliver'd to the next of kinn to the Heir to be kept and accompted for to him at his full Age. This was neither Guardian in Soccage nor Chivalry Coke 2. Inst f. 260. b. By 4 5 P.M. c. 8. No woman child under 16. can be taken against his will whom the Father hath made Guardian by Deed or Will yet this is no Lease of the Custody till 16. nor is it assignable Ratcliffs C. 3. Rep. Shoplands C. 3 Jac. Cr. f. 99. but a special Guardian appointed by the Statute and such a Guardian could not assign over nor should it go to his Executors by the Express Book This Case likewise and common Experience proves That Guardian in Soccage cannot assign nor shall the Custody go to his Executors though some ancient Books make some doubt therein For expresly by the Statute of 52 H. 3. the next of kin is to answer and be accomptable to the Heir in Soccage as this special Guardian is here by Westminster the First These several sorts of Guardians trusted for the Heir could neither assign their Custody nor did it go to their Executors because the Trust was personal and they had no Interest for themselves The Trust is as personal in this new Guardian nor hath he any Interest in it for himself and