or Legatee but as Executrix by reason of these words viz. for the payment of his debts and for the wealth of his Soul And the Justices held That all works of Charity were within the Intent CHAP. XXVI Of a Devastavit or Wast in an Executor or Administrator 1. What a Devastavit or Wast is and in what Case the Writ of Devastaverunt doth lye 2. How many wayes a Devastavit or Wast may be committed 3. An Executor or Administrator in a Devastavit or Wast is chargeable de bonis Propriis 4. What Acts do not amount to a Wast also a Wast committed by one Co-Executor shall not charge another 5. The manner of Proceedings against Executors or Administrators in case of a Devastavit 1. A Devastavit or Wast in the Executor or Administrator is when he doth mis-administer the Goods and Chattels of the deceased or mis-manage that Trust which is reposed in him either by the Testator as to the Executor or by the Law as to the Administrator and therefore the Writ of Devastaverunt bona Testatoris lyeth against Executors for paying Legacies or Debts without Specialties to the prejudice of Creditors that have Specialties before the debts upon the said Specialties be due For in this Case the Executors are as lyable to an Action as if they had wasted the Goods of the Testator riotously or without cause Likewise the said Writ lyeth against Executors or Administrators when they deliver the Legacies given by the Testator or make Restitution for wrongs done by him or pay his debts due upon Contracts or other debts upon Specialties whose dayes of payment are not yet come c. and keep not sufficient in their hands to discharge those Debts upon Record or Specialties which they are compellable formerly by Law to satisfie or do deviate from that method or order enjoyned Executors by the Law in the payment of Debts and Legacies In such Cases they shall be constrained to pay of their own Goods those Duties which at the first by the Law they were compellable to pay according to the value of that which they delivered or paid by compulsion for such payment of Debts or delivery of Legacies as is aforesaid before Debts upon Record or Specialties whose dayes of payment are already come are accounted in the Law a wasting of the Goods of the deceased as much as if they had given them away without cause or sold them and converted them to their own use 2. From the Premises it is evident that a Devastavit or Wast may be committed several wayes more particularly thus viz. When more is expended about the Funerals of the deceased with respect had to his Estate and degree than is meet and fit when Executors pay Legacies in money or assent to Legacies given in other things before the Debts are paid not reserving sufficient to pay the Debts also when the Debts are not paid in that order and manner as the Law requires but payment is made of that first which should be paid last when there is not sufficient to pay all when the Executor gives a Release of a Debt or Duty due to the deceased before his Receit thereof when he Releases an Action whereby he might recover the deceaseds Goods or the value thereof when he sells the deceaseds Goods much under value specially if in a fraudulent way as to his near friends to his own use or to have money under hand or the like But be the appreyzment what it will and let the Testator sell for what he will he shall stand chargeable to the best and utmost value towards the Creditors but a Sheriffs sale of the Testators Goods upon an Execution at an under-value is no wast in the Executor If an Executor upon a Bond of Two hundred pound forfeited for non-payment of One hundred pound accept the Principal or Cost or Dammage and give a Release or Acquittance of the whole forfeited Bond or of all Actions or upon Record acknowledge satisfaction upon Judgement had this shall be a Devastavit or Wasting of so much as the penal summ is more than is received by him and so far his own Goods stand lyable to Creditors not satisfied And so doubtless is it if he do but give up the Bond having no Judgement upon it though he neither make a Release nor acknowledge satisfaction The Law is the same in Case of releasing of Trespasses or other causes of Action As if one take away Goods from the Testator or his Executor and he give a Release this is a Wast and makes his own Goods lyable Yet on the other side if an Executor by payment of Two hundred and forty pound or thereabouts get in a forfeited Bond of Five hundred pound it shall be an Administration but of Two hundred and forty pound or of no more than he really paid Also the Executors verbal agreement to require or sue for no more or his giving a Receit for so much as he hath received or delivering of the Bond into a Friends hands or into a Court of Equity by way of Security to the Debtor that he shall not be sued for more is no Devastation or Wast since that the rest in Law still remains as due and suable And upon the Issue of Plenè Administravit the Jury is to find whether the Executor hath Assets or not and not whether a Devastation for that must come in by the Sheriffs Return upon the Fieri Facias Again the Executors submitting to Arbitrement matters of Debt or Duty due to the Testator or touching his Goods taken away is another way of discharging dangerous to Executors for if it happen that by the Arbitrators Award the Trespassers or Debtors be discharged without full Recompence made the rest of the value will subject the Executors to the Creditors because it was their own voluntary act to submit to Arbitrators Or if an Executor allow a Writ to suffer Judgement to be had against him upon a Writ which is abatable he shall not have allowance of that but this shall be Return'd as a Devastavit Yea if money be paid by an Executor upon an usurious Contract it is a Devastavit And it was held by the Lord Hobard That if an Executor pay a Bond made upon an usurious Contract it shall be a Devastavit or Wast in the Executor 3. These and the like Acts are said to be a Devastavit or Wast in the Executor or Administrator which being discovered against him by the Sheriffs Return will charge him de bonis Propriis for so much as he hath so mis-administred insomuch that any Creditor may charge him for the Debt due to him from the Testator as for his own proper Debt and for so much Execution shall be made against him upon his own Body Lands and Goods Yea the Husband shall be charged in a Devastavit for the Wast of himself or his Wife where she is an Executrix whilst
That in the Principal Case the substance of it was the Possession and not the Administration It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Pasch 27 Eliz. in C. B. Carter and Crofts case Godbolt 33. Vid. Dyer 304. An Administrator brought an Action of Debt for Rent which was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement given Exception was taken that the Plaintiff had not shewed by whom the Letters of Administration were granted to him But the Opinion of the Court was That it was too late to shew that after Verdict for that the Jury have found that the Administration was duly granted And it was said in the Court That in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom the Letters of Administration are granted or to say that they were granted by him cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium Yet Note that it was said in another case That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to shew by whom the Letters were granted to the Defendant but he must shew by whom the Letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle him to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot Sue If an Infant be made Executor Administration during the Minority of the Infant may be committed to the Mother and the same shall cease and be void when the Infant is of the Age of Fourteen years But such Administrator cannot sell the Goods of the Testator unless it be for necessity of payment of debts because he hath the Office of Administrator only pro bono commodo of the Infant and not to its prejudice Note it was resolved per Curiam That an Administration durante minori aetate of an Executrix was not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of necessity to be granted to the Widow of the Testator because there is an Executor all the while otherwise if the Executor were made from a time to come An Infant was made Executor and Administration was granted to another durante minori aetate of the Infant who brought Action of Debt for money due to the deceased and had the Defendant in Execution and then the Executor came of full Age. It was moved that the Defendant might be discharged out of Execution because the Authority of the Administrator was determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction And it was said That he was rather a Bailiff to the Infant than an Administrator But the Judgement of the Court was That though the Authority of the Administrator was determined yet the Recovery and Judgement did remain In an Account brought by an Administrator durante minori aetate against the Defendant as Bailiff of such a Mannor it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Judgement That it is not shewed that the Executor the Infant was within the Age of Seventeen years and it might be he was above the Age of Seventeen years and yet under Age But the Opinion of the Court was That it shall not be so intended unless it be shewed that he was above Seventeen years and especially when the Defendant had admitted him to bring the Action and had pleaded to Issue Between P. and S. the Case was An Infant was made Executor to whom certain Leases among other things were devised and Administration during his Minority committed to one who sold and alienated the Leases It was agreed by the Justices That the Administrator could not sell the Leases unless there were good and reasonable cause moving thereunto as in case there were no other Goods save the Leases wherewith to pay the Testators debts which ought of necessity to be paid the Leases may to that end and purpose be sold otherwise not but Beasts and other things which cannot long be kept or preserved especially fat Beasts Corn or the like may be sold And of this Opinion was the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and the Chief Baron Debt as Administrator of B. upon an Obligation the Case was That the Intestate died in Lancashire but the Obligation was at London at the time of his death and the Bishop of Chester in whose Diocess he died committed Administration to J. S. who released to the Defendant and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury committed the Administration to the Plaintiff and this Release was pleaded in Bar and it was thereupon demurr'd Warberton Every Debt follows the person of the Debtee and Chester is within the Province of York where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath nothing to do Anderson Where one dies who hath Goods in divers Diocesses in both Provinces there Canterbury shall have the Prerogative otherwise there would be Two Administrations committed which is Res inaudita The Debt is where the Bond is being upon a Specialty but debt upon a Contract follows the person of the debtor and this difference hath been oftentimes agreed vid. Dyer 305. And if the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath not any Prerogative in York but that several Administrations ought to be committed yet at leastwise Administration for this Bond ought to be committed to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury wherefore the Release is not any Bar. Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of F. he pleads a Recovery against him as Executor and besides to satisfie that he hath not any Assets And it was thereupon demurred and adjudged to be a good Plea and he shall not be twice charged wherefore it was adjudged for the Defendant Debt against the Defendant as Administratrix of T. H. her Husband upon a Lease to the said T. by Indenture for years and how the Defendant is Administratrix to him And for Rent arrear after his death the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet upon Not Guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and now moved in Arrest of Judgement That the Declaration was not good for that c. And at another day it was moved That this Declaration ought to have been in the Detinet and not in the Debet and Detinet because she hath the Term as Administratrix and is not charged by her own Contract but by an Act of the Testator and to that purpose was cited 19 H. 8. 8. 10 H. 5. 7. And a President was shewn in C. B. between Barker and Kelsay where the Action was brought in the Detinet only And Godfrey affirmed that in Fenns Case in this Court it was Ruled That the Action ought to be brought in the Detinet Gaudy The Action is well brought in the Debet For this Rent though Arrear after the death of the Intestate begun first in the Administratrix and therefore the Action well lies against her in the Debet For the reason why the Action against an Executor shall be in the Detinet is for that the debt grew due by the Testator and therefore it cannot be said that Executor Debet But in an Action against the Heir it shall
Absque hoc that he Administred as Executor or in any other manner and it was thereupon demurr'd and adjudged to be an ill Plea because he doth not say that he refused before the Ordinary nor confesseth any Administration for that which he confesseth is not any Administration and so no answer to the Plaintiff Wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Debt The Plaintiff as Administrator of J. S. sued upon an Obligation made by the Defendant and had Judgement afterwards the Administration is revoked but notwithstanding that the Plaintiff proceeded and got the Defendant in Execution And upon a motion to the Court it was agreed by the whole Court That the Execution was void and that the Defendant ought to be discharged Quia Erronicè emanavit for that the Letters of Administration being revoked the Plaintiffs power is determined therefore the ground of his sute being overthrown viz. his Commission he hath no Authority to proceed further and the Execution issued without Warrant The same Law per Curiam on a Judgement for an Administrator the second Administrator shall not have Execution thereon for he is not privy to the Record Quod nota Debt The Case was Rent was granted to Baron and Feme for their lives the Rent was Arrear the Baron dies another Rent is Arrear the Feme dies Intestate and her Administrator brings debt for the Arrerages due in the Life of the Baron and after All the Court resolved that it well lay because the Arrerages survived to the Feme as well as the Rent it self But an Exception was taken to the Declaration for that it is alledged that Administration was committed by the Dean of Lichfield and it shews not by what Authority he committed it nor that he was Loci illius Ordinarius and for this cause the Court held the Declaration to be ill for the Court intends not his Authority being special without shewing it But the pleading of Administration committed by a Bishop is good enough without saying that he was Loci ilius Ordinarius for so it shall be intended and so the Presidents warrant it but in a Bar of Replication it is vicious vid. 35 H. 6. 46. Debt brought against C. as Administrator and Judgement thereupon and now moved in Arrest thereof That this Action was brought by an Administrator who shews That Administration was committed to him by the Arch-Deacon but shews not what Authority the Arch-Deacon had to commit Administration and in proof thereof 21 H. 6. 23. and 35 H. 6. 46. were cited And the difference is where Administration is committed by the Bishop or Metropolitan and where by one who hath a peculiar Jurisdiction for in the last case he ought to shew how he hath his power Plowd 297. And although it be after Verdict yet it is not holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 14. being matter of substance and not of form as it was adjudged in Cutts and Bennetts Case but the Court held that it was well enough and they said That the Books are of Peculiars for it cannot be intended that they have any Authority unless it be shewn But the Arch-Deacon is Oculus Episcopi And de Jure Ordinario he is to commit Administration And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff An Executor recovers Debt and dies Intestate the Ordinary committs Administration de bonis non c. The Administrator shall not have a Scire Facias on the Judgement but a new Action of Debt as Administrator to the first Testator who is now dead Intestate A man sets a Lease for years the Lessee Covenants for him and his Assigns that he will not Lop nor Top the Trees during the Term And after the Lessee dies Intestate and the Ordinary committed Administration to J. B. who lopp'd the Trees whereupon the Opinion of the Court was That it was a breach of the Covenant for that an Administrator is an Assign as well as an Executor Administrator brought Debt and declared that Administration was committed to him by A. B. Sacrae Theologiae Professorem and saith not Loci ilius Ordinarium for which cause upon Errour the Judgement was reversed In this Case the Question was whether the Ordinary had power to take a Bond or Obligation of the Administrator to distribute according to the Ordinaries discretion the Goods that should remain after Debts and Legacies paid And it seemed to the Court That such Obligation is not good But in regard the Case was of great consequence Adjournatur Debt brought by J. S. against A. P. Executor of H. W. upon a Bond or Obligation of One hundred Marks the Defendant pleaded he was never Executor nor Administred as Executor whereupon they were at Issue and at a Nisi Prius it was found by a special Verdict That he had received Seven pound Debt due to the Testator and made an Acquittance for the same and took into his possession several particular parcels of Goods of the Testators and converted them to his own use whereupon all the Justices resolved That it was an Administration but at the Request of Sir Anthony Brown they respited the Judgement after the Defendant died and it repented the Justices that they had not given Judgement The Ordinary may grant several Administrations of several parts of the Intestates Goods 10 Ed. 4. 1. b. 18 H. 6. 22. b. 38 Ed. 3. 21. Also he may grant the Administration conditionally as whereas it was before granted to J. S. who is now Out-lawed or a Prisoner or beyond Sea c. he may grant it to another with an Ita tamen That if the said J. S. return into England he shall Administer when he returns If an Executor takes only the Goods which the Testator in his life-time took from him per tort it is not an Administration If certain Goods be devised to a Co-Executor and he take them without the Assent of the other Co-Executor it is an Administration because a Devisee cannot take the Goods devised without the Executors Assent Administration may be committed of the Goods of a Woman Covert who dies Intestate for possibly she might have things in Action which by the Law are not given to her Husband nor after her decease are at all invested in him D. 8 Eliz. 25. 90. Admitt A man possessed of Goods made an Infant his Executor and died the Ordinary committed Administration durante minoriaetate of the Infant to a Stranger The Question was when the Infant came of full Age what Remedy he should have against the Administrator for the Goods It was the Opinion of the Justices That he should not have an Account against him but he might have Detinue against him for the Goods or otherwise Sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court for them Debt against an Executor The Defendant pleaded That he had taken Letters of Administration The Plaintiff replyed That he Administred of his own wrong and after took Letters of Administration It
Lease for years worth Fifty pound per annum or more out of which he payes Ten pound yearly Rent and dies in this Case not the full value of the Land yearly but only so much as is above the said Rent shall be deemed Assets in the hands of the Executor or Administrator Or suppose the deceased dies possessed of Goods and Chattels to the value of Two hundred pound and in debt to M. Two hundred pound and to N. One hundred pound and to O. Fifty pound and to P. Twenty pound and Composition is made with M. for Sixty pound or other Summ more or less under Two hundred pound In this Case the Executor is deemed to have Assets chargeable to the other Creditors for so much as is above the Summ so compounded unto Two hundred pound Or where a man is indebted Forty pound to one and Thirty pound to another and dies leaving but Forty pound in all and his Executors agree with the Creditor of Forty pound for Ten pound and have his Acquittance for the Forty pound yet the Thirty pound remaining in their hands shall be Assets 2. If Executors do Recover any Dammages for Trespass or other wrong done to the Testator the money recovered will be Assets in their hands as well as Debts recovered upon Bonds or Bills or Lands by them taken in extent upon Statutes Recognizances or Judgements Yea without ever having these monies Executors may make them Assets in their hands viz. by making Releases or Acquittances or Acknowledgement of Satisfaction for this amounteth to a Receit and chargeth the Executors towards the Creditors with the whole penal Summ though possibly they receive but part as the Principal or some such proportion But Debts or Dammages recovered by a Judgement had by the deceased in his life-time whereof no Execution was are not Assets in his Executors or Administrators hands until Execution be made yea though Execution be made and the Dammages so recovered that they be gotten into the Executors hands or possession yet if the Judgement be Erroneous and the Execution avoidable it shall not be deemed Assets in his hands for which Cause a Debt Sued and Recovered by one as Administrator to A. B. and afterwards a Testament made by A. B. produced and proved is not Assets in the Administrators hands because the Executor in the said Testament may recover it from him 3. A Mortgage Redeemed is Assets unless the Executors redeemed it with their own money Likewise Goods of the Testators redeemed by the Executor with the Testators money are Assets in the Executor it is otherwise if the Executor having no monies of the Testators doth redeem them with his own money If the Testator grant a Lease for years or Horses Sheep Plate or other Cattle unto A. upon some Condition that A. did not perform after the Testators death in this Case the Chattel reverts and comes back to the Testators Executors and is Assets in their hands Also if A. Covenant with B. to make him a Lease of such or such Land by such a day and B. dieth before the day and before any Lease made now must A. make the Lease to the Executor of B. and the Lease so made to him shall be Assets in his hands because the Executor shall have the Term only as Executor So if A. undertake to deliver in to B. Twenty loads of Coles Wood or other Merchandize whatsoever and this is not performed in the life of B. but afterwards to his Executor this shall be Assets in his hands as well as the money recovered in Dammages for non-performing should have been Likewise any Goods or Chattels whatsoever given or bequeathed to any person by the Testator upon a Condition certain and the Condition not afterwards performed by such Conditional Legatary the said Goods and Chattels conditionally bequeathed do revert to the Executor and become Assets in his hands 4. Encrease gotten to the Executors by Merchandizing with the Testators Goods shall be Assets in their hands and shall charge them Likewise Dammages recovered by an Executor in an Action of Trespass shall as aforesaid be Assets and yet they were never in the Testator Also if a Lease be made to one for life the Remainder to his Executors for years and he dieth this will be Assets in the hands of his Executors though it never were in the Testator So where a Lease for years is bequeathed to A. for life and after to B. who dieth before A. although B. never had this Term in him so as that he could grant or dispose it yet shall it rest in his Executor as his Goods and be Assets in his Executors hands Likewise a Remainder for years so in the Testator that he might grant or dispose it at his pleasure though the same fell not in possession to the Testator in his life-time yet this is Assets to the Executor even whilst it continues a Remainder and before it falleth into possession because it is presently valuable and vendible In like manner Gain gotten by Trading as aforesaid with the Testators money Wool growing upon Sheep after the Testators death also the encrease of Sheep or other Cattel after the Testators death though never in the Testators actual possession shall yet be Assets in the Executor Likewise a Feoffment made to the Feoffors use for life and after him to the use of his Executors or Assigns for a certain number of years that number of years shall be Assets in the hands of the Feoffors Executor Also Goods hypothecated or pledged to the deceased in his life-time and not redeemed or the money thereof when redeemed is Assets in the Executors or Administrators hands Likewise the money raised by the Sale of the deceaseds Lands sold by his appointment by the Executors for the payment of his debts as when the deceased did in his life-time appoint that his Executors shall sell his Lands to pay his debts shall as aforesaid be Assets in the Executors hands Also if Executors had a Villein for years and the Villein purchased Lands in Fee and the Executors entered they had a Fee-Simple but it was Assets The reason was because they had the Villein in auter droit viz. as Executors to the use of the dead And if Executors having Assets do wast it or pay Debts or Legacies in any other order or method than the Law hath prescribed they must answer it out of their own Estates 5. Debts due to the Testator be not Assets in the Testators hands so as to charge him for the payment of Debts and Legacies until Judgement and Execution had or they be otherwise recovered received or released by him And an Executor paying the just value of the Testators Goods to the Creditors may retain the same Goods in his hands which nevertheless shall not afterwards charge the Executor as Assets But if question be concerning the value it is received by all that the
as well by his own Oath as by the Law insomuch that should the Testator himself discharge his Executor from making an Account yet may the Ordinary at his discretion in case of Fraud exact an Account from him Therefore the Ordinary may if he please call him to Account either Generally or Particularly as the Case shall require and that either at or without the motion or instance of the Creditors or Legataries within a year or what time he please at which Account he may call all the Creditors and Legataries and therein he must set forth what he hath received what expended and Prove it too if need so require And upon a just Account so made the Ordinary may acquit him whereby he is discharged of all Sutes in the Spiritual Court But as to that the stile of each Court is to be observed And in the Proof of such Accounts the lesser summs as under Forty shillings may be Proved by the Executors own Oath the greater must be by due proofs 2. The Executor ought to have a competent time for the performance of the Will before he be called to an Account which time ought to be a Twelvemoneth Yet he may sooner be called to it by the Ordinary in case of Male-Administration or if the Ordinary see cause for it at least to a particular Account but herein also the several stiles of several Courts are to be observed And in this Account the Funerals Debts Legacies and moderate Expences ought to be allowed to the Executor so far as he hath really paid or is obliged to And the Executor having made a full and just Account ought to be acquitted and discharged of all further sute if it be such an Account of his whole Office neither is he to be called by the Ordinary to any further Account 3. No Executor is obliged to make any Account to the Creditors or Legataries extrajudicially but at their instance to the Ordinary he is compellable to it judicially and at the making of such Account they and all others having or pretending to have interest are to be summoned Legally to be present Otherwise the Account made in their absence and they not summoned will not prejudice them And yet extrajudicially an Executor may exact an Account of his Co-Executor but not in Judgement or judicially but the Ordinary as aforesaid may call them both or either of them to a Judicial Account CHAP. XXX Of Administrators in a notion distinct from Executors 1. Administrator what he is in the Law 2. The Origination of an Administrator by and to whom Letters of Administration are to be granted 3. What provision of Law in Case of an Administrator after an Executors death 4. What the Law is in case a Stranger doth Administer or the Ordinary grant his Letters ad Colligendum 5. In what manner Administration is to be granted 6. Of Administration durante minoritate 7. In what Cases Letters of Administration may be granted 8. Law-Cases touching this Subject 1. AN Administrator is in the Law called Executor Dativus because as such he is constituted or appointed by the Ordinary As by the Statutes so by the Common Law of this Realm an Administrator is properly taken for him that Legally hath or in his own wrong illegally the Goods and Chattels of a person dying Intestate or hath Administred to the same but more properly that hath them committed to his trust and charge by the Ordinary and is accountable for the same whensoever it shall please the Ordinary to call him thereunto and this is done for default of an Executor 2. By the Constitution of Leo the Emperour it was Enacted That if a man dying bequeath any thing for the Redemption of Captives c. and appoint one to execute the Will in that point the party so appointed should see it performed but if he appointed none to do it then was the Bishop of the City Authorized to demand the Legacy and therewith to perform the Will of the deceased without delay From whence it is probably conjectured that the Administration of the Goods of persons dying intestate by Bishops and others of Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction under them was Originally derived For it was Anciently Ordained That the Goods of those dying Intestate should be committed to the disposition of the Ordinary who should be obliged to answer the deceaseds debts so far forth as his Goods would extend unto even as Executors themselves in the like case And after this by another Statute power was given to the Ordinary to appoint Administrators and to Authorize them as fully as Executors to gather up and dispose the Goods of the Intestate Alway provided that they should be accountable for the same as Executors by which Statute it is ordained That the Ordinaries shall depute the next and most lawful Friends of the Intestate to be his Administrators who then in Law have nigh in all things equivalent power with Executors Insomuch that whatever hath been or may be spoken of the one may nigh in all points be properly applyed and aptly accommodated to the other And lastly in confirmation of the Premises it is enacted by a latter Statute That in case any person die Intestate or having made a Will the Executor therein named refuse to Prove the same the Ordinary or others Authorized for the Probate of Testaments may grant Administration to the deceaseds Widow or to the next of his Kin or to both at the Ordinaries discretion taking Surety for them for the due Administration And by the same Statute it is further Enacted That if divers persons claim the Administration as next of Kin which be in equal degree of kindred to the deceased and where any one person only desireth the Administration as next of Kin where indeed divers persons be in equality of kindred then in every such case the Ordinary is at his Election and Liberty to accept any one or more making request where divers do require the Administration 3. An Executor after Probate made dying Intestate the Administration of the first Testators Goods not Administred may be granted to whom the Ordinary shall see cause in Law and he may grant the Administration of the Goods both of the first and second deceased de bonis non Administratis to one and the same person in which case the Administrator ought to see that his Administration have special words for granting the Administration of the first Testators Goods not Administred For though some are of Opinion that by the general Administration the Administrator shall have not only the Executors but the Testators Goods also yet this is otherwise held for Law at this day And an Action shall lie for or against such an Administrator as for or against an Executor and he shall be charged to the value of the Goods of the deceased and no further if it happen not otherwise by his
own false Plea or for that he hath wasted the deceaseds Goods But if the Administrator die his Executors do not succeed him in that Administration but the Ordinary is to commit a new Administration The Law is the same when an Executor dyeth before he hath Proved the Will or Administred any of the Goods in which Case a new Administration is to be granted to the Widow or next of Kin of the first Testator with the Will annexed unless he had also bequeathed the residue of his Goods unto the said Executor for in that case the Administration of his Goods belongs unto the Widow or next of Kin of the Executor and not of the Testator Or if an Executor be made Universal Legatary and die before he hath Proved the Will of the Testator in this case likewise the Administration of the Testators Goods doth belong to the next of Kin of such universal Legatary and not of the Testator 4. If a Stranger that is neither Administrator nor Executor take to himself the deceaseds Goods and Administer of his own wrong he shall be charged and sued as an Executor and not as an Administrator in any Action that is brought against him by any Creditor But if the Ordinary make a Letter Ad Colligendum bona Defuncti he that hath such a Letter is no Administrator but the Action lieth against the Ordinary himself as well as if he took the Goods into his own hands or by the hands of any of his Servants by any other Command or Order And Note that if an Administrator doth alienate or convert to his own use all the Goods which did belong to the Intestate in this case an Action doth lye against the Executor of that Administrator and is lyable to be charged for the debts due by the Intestate which is otherwise of an Executors Executor 5. An Administration must pass under Seal in Writing not by word of mouth for the Ordinary cannot commit Administration by word of mouth otherwise it is if it be entered into his Registry though Letters of Administration be not formerly drawn Yet it may be granted as well upon condition as absolutely and as well for part as for the whole Estate so that a man dying possessed of Goods in Two Provinces making his Will of the Goods only in one of them and dying Intestate as to the Goods in the other Province Administration may be granted as to the Goods of that Province whereof he died Intestate likewise Administration may be granted only for or during some certain limited time Also an Executorship limited to a certain time the Ordinary ought to grant Administration after the expiration thereof or if a man appoint an Executorship not to begin till some certain time after the Testators death Administration is to be granted till that time doth Commence In like manner where an Executor is made conditionally and the condition yet depending it is for prevention of prejudice to Creditors and Legataries Provided that the Ordinary may commit Administration to the said conditional Executor only during the dependency of the condition but upon infringement or defect of the condition Administration is to be granted to the next of Kin. 6. There is also an Administrator durante minori aetate which is a special kind of Administration and is only in case where an Infant under the Age of Seventeen years is made Executor in which case the Administration is committed to one or more of the next of Kin of the Infant during his Minority that is till he be capable of the Executorship which is at the Age of Seventeen years the power of such an Administrator is equivalent to the power of other Administrators and therefore if it be granted during the Minority of several joynt-Executors all under the Age of Seventeen years and one of them dye or attain to the Age of Seventeen years then is the Administration determined so also is it if a Feme-Minor Executrix take a Husband of that Age. And if such an Administrator durante minori aetate get a Judgement and before Execution the infant-Infant-Executor doth come of Age the Executor himself may have Execution of this Judgement 7. To the several reasons and causes for granting of Letters of Administration mentioned in the Premises may be added That if a Testament be not made with all Freedome as it ought to be viz. without fear of Loss or hope of Gain without Threats Flattery Fraud or Collusion without Errour Uncertainty Fallacy Imperfection Cancelling or Revocation or if the Testator be a person incapable of making a Testament or if his Will contrary to the nature of Wills depend upon another mans Will or otherwise the party dying Intestate as aforesaid or Testate and the Executor refuse to Prove the Will In all these cases the Administration is to be committed to the Widow or next of Kin to the Intestate sometimes with the Will annexed if there be any and in some cases not But the Administration is not to be committed according to the Statutes to the Widow or next of Kin in case of suspending the Probate by reason of the yet dependency of some unaccomplished condition in the Will but to him that is made Executor and that only for and during so long time as the condition dependeth for in this case the party is not Intestate so long as the condition is accomplishable or performable Again if the Mind Will and Intention of an intestate touching the disposition of his Goods and Chattels be declared though for want of making an Executor he dye Intestate so as Administration is to be committed yet for that here is not only an inchoation but in part a progression of a Will it is to be annexed to the Letters of Administration and to be observed and performed by the Administrator In Detinue brought by an Administrator of a Chain of which the Intèstate died possessed and which after came to the Defendants hands the case was upon a special Verdict That the Administration was committed to the Defendant in London by the Bishop of Cork being in London but they did not find that the Defendant was possessed of the Chain in London and in this Case these Points were resolved 1. That a Bishop of Ireland being in England might commit Administration of things in Ireland because it is but a Power and Authority which follows his person wheresoever it is 2. That an Administrator made by a Bishop of Ireland could not bring an Action here as Administrator because of the Letters of Administration granted in Ireland there could be no Tryal here 3. That an Administrator might declare of his own possession although he was never possessed if the Intestate at the time of his death was possessed for that the Law casts a possession upon him 4. That upon a general Issue pleaded the Jury might find a forreign matter as a thing done out of England 5. It was resolved
Executors Age of Seventeen years and that Administration committed after that Age of the Executor is meerly void and notwithstanding this averment here the Executor might be above the age of Seventeen years and within the age of Twenty one years It was therefore adjudged Quod Quaerens nihil caperet c. 5. Co. 29. Trespass upon a special Verdict the Case was Jackson Lessee for years by several Leases of divers Lands some of them in the Diocess of York some in another Peculiar in the same Diocess devised all these Leases to his Son and made his Daughter within Age his Executrix the Mother takes Administration durante minori aetate of the Executrix in F. the Peculiar where the Testator died ad Commodum proficuum Executricis the Administratrix granted this Term durante minori aetate of the Executrix to the Plaintiff Whether the Grant were good or not was the principal Question The Court resolved that it was not good For such an Administrator hath but a special property ad proficuum Executoris but not a general property as another Executor or Administrator hath and therefore his sale of Goods unless they be Bona peritura or it be for necessity for the payment of debts which he is chargeable to pay it shall not bind But he may sue and be sued and yet his Authority is but a limited Authority and therefore like as if Letters ad Colligendum bona Defuncti were granted to one there he may sell bona peritura as Fruit or the like 2. It was moved whether the Assent of an Administrator durante minori aetate to the devise of a Term or the Assent of the Executor himself during his minority to such a Devise be good Anderson said That an Executor at the Age of Eighteen years may Assent but whether the Assent by such an Administrator be good or not they doubted 3. It was moved whether Administration should in this case be granted at Two places viz. the one within the Peculiar the other by the Arch-Bishop of York Ordinary of the Diocess or whether he should have the Prerogative in both as he had where Bona Notabilia were in divers Diocesses And it was resolved That there should be two Letters of Administration granted for the Arch-Bishop shall not have any Prerogative here because this Peculiar was first derived out of his Jurisdiction wherefore c. 5. Co. 29. Errour of a Judgement in Debt in C. B. The Errour assigned was because the Plaintiff sues by an Atturney where he was an Infant and ought to sue by Guardian But because the Action was brought by him as Administrator so that he sued in auter droit Infancy is no impediment unto him no more than Out-lawrie and therefore he might well sue by Atturney and it was thereupon adjudged for the Defendant that the first Judgement should be affirmed Note that if an Infant sue and not as Executor he must then sue by his Guardian vid. Case Bartholomew vers Dighton Hill 37 Eliz. B. R. in Cro. Rep. part 1. Pl. 22. Debt upon an Obligation made to the Testator The Defendant Pleaded a Release made by one of the Plaintiffs The Plaintiff replyes That this Release was made without any consideration and he who Released was within Age at the time of the Release made and it was thereupon demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff that it was a void Release being by an Infant without consideration In the Case between A. and M. as Administratrix of J. during the minority of L. It was among other things Objected That the Plaintiffs Declaration was not good because it is brought against her as Administratrix durante minori aetate of L. And it is not averr'd that the said L. was yet within the age of Seventeen years sed non allocatur for true it is that if one brings an Action and entitles himself as Administrator durante minori aetate of one such he ought to shew that he is yet within the Age of Seventeen years as Co. 5. fol. 59. Pigots Case For that he is to take Conuzance how long his Authority shall continue and he ought to shew it to enable himself to the Action But when he brings the Action against one as Administrator durante minori aetate there such Plea need not be shewn for so long as the other continues his medling he shall be sued and the Plaintiffs need not take Conuzance of the age of the other as c. And here if her Authority were determined it should be shewn on the Defendants part therefore the Judgement was affirmed Note it was resolved by all the Justices of England That the Release of a Debt or a Duty by an Infant Executor after Probate made of the Will is not good because it should be a Devastavit and charge the Infant of his own Goods and also it should be a wrong which an Infant by his Release cannot do and also because it is not pursuant to the Office of an Executor Infant Executor Administration was committed durante minori aetate debt was brought against the Administrator and then the Infant came of full age and the Justices very much doubted whether the Action did abate A Guardian Recovered a debt on an Obligation made to an Infant the Defendant paid the Principal and Costs and prayed that the Guardian might be ordered to acknowledge satisfaction The Court said That a Guardian or an Infant or Executor may not acknowledge satisfaction for more than they receive and for so much they ordered the Guardian to acknowledge satisfaction And made an Order that no Execution should issue for the residue If an Administration be repealed from one and granted to another which was only durante minori aetate and that other bring the first Administrator to account and after give him a Release yet the Infant at his full age may compell the first Administrator to account to him again and the former account to such second Administrator shall not Bar him for such Administrators Release is not good unless for some such cause as for which it ought to be made It was by the Chief Justice of the Queens Bench demanded of the other Justices there Assembled upon hearing of Causes If one make an Infant his Executor that Releases a Debt due to him as Executor without receiving the summ due which receipt if it be good will be a Devastavit by the Infant of the Goods in his hands whether such Release shall bind the Infant or not It was agreed by them all That such Release is void for an Infant by his own Laches and Folly shall not prejudice himself Yet a Feme Covert Executrix may receive money without her Husband which was due to her Testator and give an Acquittance for the same and if she gives an Acquittance for debt which causes a Devastavit the Release shall be good and the Wife and Husband bound thereby the reason is
Condition of Superstitious Vses vests the Land in the Crown Ibid § 11. What Provision of Law in Case the Legatary die before Condition broken or the time for performance be come p. 281 § 11. Conditions Testamentary in reference to Marriage p 27 c. Conditions directly against Marriage are unlawfull with the Limitations thereof p. 342 343 § 25. Condition of Marriage is annexable to a Legacy or Devise but an unlawfull Condition thereof is void p 279 § 1. Condition of Marriage with the consent of another doth oblige the Legatary to Marry but not to have such consent Ibid § 2. Condition of Marriage with the Advice of another obligeth the Legatary to Ask it but not to follow it Ibid § 3. What in case the Legatary were Married before Ibid. § 4. p 316 § 18. Though a Condition against Marrige be void yet the Legacy is not p 280 § 5. The Canon Laws Distinction in case of Conditions directly contrary to Marriage p 280 § 9. Conditions of Non-alienation are intended only of voluntary Alienations p 438 § 17. Conditions necessary are as no Conditions Ibid § 18. Conditions implyed by Relative Pronouns Ibid § 19. Positions in Law touching Conditions p 438 § 16 to 26. Conditional Testaments how and when such p 22 23. The several kinds thereof p 23 to 27. Confidence in a Feme Covert is not transferrable to the Husband upon her death p 236. infin Consent or Delivery by an Executor requisite to a Legacy or Divise p 440 § 39 c. Corne standing is Devisable where the Land it self may not be p 225 § 2. p 304 § 13. Corporations or any Member thereof may not Devise the Land they have in right of their Corporations p 225 § 3. Costs not payable by an Executor Non-suited on Judgment against him p 104 § ult p 110 § ult p 117 § ult Given in Chancery against a Testator doth not charge his Executor p 108 § 6. Coverture nulls a Devise it may revive by a new Publication after the Husbands death p 289 § 9. Courtelage passeth by the Devise of a House p 237 in pr. Creditors made Executors p 74 to 77 They may pay themselves first the Limitations of that Rule p 75 76 § 3. Custome of London in reference to Executors or Administrators touching Debts by simple Contract p 116 117 § ult D. Deaf and Dumb naturally not Intestable absolutely p 19. Whether they may make a Devise of Lands p 226 § 3. Death of the Legatary before the existence of a possible Condition annexed to his Legacy insignificates the same p 325 § 13. Debet Detinet in what Cases And in what Cases in the Detinet only p 113 § 7 p 157 § ult Debts Bequeathed p 321 322 c. p 440 § 36 40 41. p 446 § 95. What Debts not Devisable p 440 § 38. Debts and Things in Action are Devisable by Will some only excepted p 321 § 1. Debts Bequeathed how extinguished or not p 324 § 11. Debt Bequeathed twice is due but once p 325 § 12. Debt Bequeathed to Joint-Debtors Ibid Debt Bequeathed the Executor is discharged by Assigning the Bond to the Legatary p 326. § 17. Debt is where the Bond is but upon a Contract it follows the Person p 157 § ult Where Debt upon a simple Contract may by the Custom be paid by an Administrator as soon as a Debt upon a Bond. p 116 117. § ult Debt is Assets though the Debtor be Administrator p 76 § 4. That can be no Debt in the Executor which was none in the Testator p. 107 § 6. Debt lieth not against an Executor upon a simple Contract of the Testator but an Action of the Case only p. 107 108 § 6 p 109 115 § ult It lyeth against them for Rent of Land Leased to their Testator p 115 § ult Debts by Bonds and Specialties are not Comprized in a general Legacy p 327 § 19. Whether Debts Bonds and Specialties are Comprized under the Notion of Moveables or Immoveables p 310 § 10. The Executors Method in paying of Debts p 142 c. Debts upon Record to be first satisfied p 108 § 7. In what case a Statute may be paid before a Judgment p. 137 138 § ult Debts to be paid before Legacies p 142 § 1. The Reason thereof in Law p. 440 § 45. What Debts to the Crown have Priority to the Subjects Debts p 143 § 3. Executors may satisfie their own Debts before any other of equal quality and degree p 142 § 2. What the Law is in Case of Debts for Rent upon Leases p 146 147 § 9. Declaration precedent Derogatory to the subsequent doth prevail against it p 302 § 4. An Exception to that Rule Ibid. Deed of Purchase Devised what it signifies p 448 § 103. Delegates or Judges Delegate whether they may grant Letters of Administration p 158 § ult Demonstrations false destroy not Legacies p 210 § 3 p 441 § 48. Vnderstand it of False Necessary not False Superfluous Demonstrations p 213 § 1. The difference between that and a False Cause p 214 § 2. Designation how a Legacy shall be paid makes it not Conditional nor Questionable whether it shall be paid p 315 § 14. Detinue in what Cases it lies or not p 102 § 7 § ult p 107 § 5. How it lies for an Infant-Executor against an Administrator Durante Minoritate p 162 § ult Devastavit What and in how many ways it may be in what Cases it lies the Method of proceeding therein and Execution thereupon p 134 c. Devise what p 200 § 1. Its Requisites p 202 § 2. In what Court properly recoverable p 204 § 4. Refused to be Delivered by Executors what remedy Ibid. What words or expressions sufficient for a Devise p 209 c. Wherein a Devise of Lands differs from a Bequest of Goods p. 4 § 2. Devise of a thing not in rerum Natura at the Testators death void p 292 § 20. It is as inferrable from the Testators Intention as intelligible by his expression p 295 § 36. An Omission of what the Testator said he would make a description of doth not null a Devise p. 296 § 37. The same thing twice Conditionally Devised by two Testators to several persons how or in what Case good to either or not p 297 § 41. Devisable what p. 221 c. p 311. § 15. Whether a Testator may Bequeath what is not his own p 221. § 2. What things in particular may be Devised Ibid. § 1. How the Testator may Bequeath what is his Executors p. 222 223. § 3. A Bequest to one of what was his own before Ibid. § 4. The difference between the Common and Civil Law in this point of Devising what is another mans Ibid. § 5. Goods in Joint-Tenancy are not Devisable p. 223. § 6. Devisee or Devisor who may be such p. 205 c. Deuisee must be capable of