Rent belongs to the Heir where it is reserved by a Lay-person and he dies after Michaelmas and before the moneth ended Wherefore it was adjudged accordingly vid. 10. Co. 129. Action brought by an Administrator for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years by the Intestate and for Rent arrear in his time the Action was brought and he shews how Administration was committed by the Arch-Bishop but doth not say Quod profert hic in curia Literas Administrationis The Defendant pleaded and found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Judgement That the not shewing the Letters of Administration was matter of Substance which made the Declaration vicious and not aided by the Statute of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. by the Verdicts for that enables the Plaintiff to his Action and the omission thereof takes from the Defendant the advantage which he might have by demanding Oyer thereof and c. The Court resolved That it was a matter of Substance which ought to be shewn by the Plaintiff to enable him to his Action And the Defendant shall have advantage thereof at any time wherefore it was adjudged for the Defendant Vid. 28 H. 6. 31. 16 Ed. 4. 8. 21 H. 6. 23. Plowd 52. Errour in a Judgment in C. B. The Errour Assigned for that in Assumpsit brought as Executor although he shews himself to be Executor to him to whom the Promise was made yet he saith not Testamentum hic in Curia prolatum The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit and found against him and Judgement accordingly And this being assigned for Errour was held to be matter of Substance and not of form only and was therefore Reversed An Executor brings Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleads non est Factum and found for him And now the Question was whether the Plaintiff should pay Costs upon the New Statute of 4 Jac. which exacts That in every Action where the Verdict passeth for the Defendant the Plaintiff should pay Costs but it was resolved That this Case is not within the intent of the Statute he being in anothers right and of matter which lay not in his cognizance therefore the Law never intended to give Costs against him And so it is upon the Statute of 8 Eliz. where Costs be given in case the Plaintiff is Non-suted As it was ruled in one Fords Case and so it was Ruled here And although Manne said Costs had been allowed in the like Cases they appointed that henceforth it should no more be so It was held That an Administrator shall have Trespass de bonis asportatis in vita Intestati by the equity of the Statute of 4 Ed. 3. And an Executors Executor by the Stat. of 25 E. 3. On a Scire Facias the Case was this Goth was in debt to one Couper who died Intestate his Wife took Administration and brought Debt and had Judgement to recover and died Intestate Yate the Plaintiff took Administration of the Goods of Couper non Administrat and brought Scire Facias to have Execution on the Judgement But it was adjudged that it doth not lie for want of Privity but it is clear that he may have a new Action of Debt And by Popham and Yelverton if an Administrator recover Dammages on Trespass de bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris and then dye Intestate his Administrator shall have Execution thereon otherwise of a Debt recovered which was due to the Intestate Tenant in Dower makes a Lease for years reserving Rent and takes a Husband the Rent is in arrear the Husband dies and it was agreed by the whole Court That his Executors shall have the Rent If A. make a Promise to B. and after B. die Intestate and Administration of his Goods be committed to C. who after dies also Intestate and after Administration is committed to D. of the Goods of C. In this Case D. cannot have an Action on the Promise made to B. as Administrator to G. For he is not Administrator to B. in that Administration was not granted to him of the Goods of B. unadministred by C. CHAP. XXIII Of Actions maintainable against Executors or Administrators 1. Executors lyable to be sued by Creditors though their Testators Goods not actually possessed by them or imbeziled from them 2. What kind of Servants wages Executors are lyable to pay and discharge 3. How Executors are lyable in Case of breach of Covenant by their Testator in his life-time 4. In what Case an Executor may be lyable to pay his Testators Debt out of his the Executors own proper money 5. Several other Cases wherein Executors are lyable to be sued 6. Certain Cases wherein Executors are not lyable 7. Several Law-Cases touching Actions against Executors and Administrators 1. ALthough the Executor hath not actually and particularly laid his hands upon any of the Testators Goods yet shall he be said to be in possession of them so as to stand lyable to the Creditors so far as they extend in value though afterwards others do purloyne or imbezil them 2. Executors are lyable for the payment of the wages of the Testators Servants retain'd in Husbandry and the like but not for the wages of Waiters or Serving-men the reason of the difference is because of the Statute compelling the one not the other to serve Yet for them also an Action did lie against the Testator himself because of his Covenant 3. Where a breach of Covenant happens in the Testators life-time the Executor stands chargeable Therefore if one make a Lease of Land by Deed wherein he hath nothing and die before an Action of Covenant be brought against him it will be maintainable against his Executor though no express Covenant Also if a Lessee for years Covenants to repair the Buildings or to pay the Quit-Rents issuing out of the Lands Lett the Executor to whom the Term cometh must as well as his Testator perform that Covenant although he did not Covenant for him and his Executors Likewise if one be Lessee for years or for life without any Indenture or Deed as he may be and his Rent being behind dieth In this Case his Executor shall be lyable to the payment of this Rent though without any specialty But if the Lessee for years sell or grant away his Term or Lease and die his Executor shall not be charged for any Rent due after the death of his Testator though himself in his life-time was still lyable for the Rent to grow due after until the Lessor accept the Assignee for his Tenant So that if a Lease for years be made rendring Rent and the Rent be behind and the Lessee die his Executor shall be charged for this Rent or if the Lessee for years Assign over his Interest and die his Executor shall be charged with the Arrerages before the Assignment but not with any of the Arrerages due after the Assignment Also an Executor is chargeable for Tythes due
be in the Debet and Detinet because he is bound by special words in the Obligation and here the debt which in the time of the Administratrix occurr'd is her debt and in Dyer 6 Ed. 6. 81. the Action is brought in the Debet and Detinet for Rent Arrear in the time of the Executor and admitted to be good Popham accord For the being charged with the Rent in her time it accrews by reason of the Profits of the Land which she her self received and therefore she is charged having quid pro quo For if an Executor hath a Lease for years of Land of the value of Twenty pound per Ann. rendring Ten pound per Ann. Rent it is Assets in his hands only for Ten pound over and above the Rent Fenner agreed to this Opinion and to that purpose cited 10 H. 6. 11. That the Husband shall be charged after the death of the Feme for Rent Arrear in his own time because he received the Profits of the Land So as the Rent grew due in respect of the occupation and taking of the Profits And therefore she is chargeable and not meerly as Executrix Clinch agreed with them wherefore it was then adjudged for the Plaintiff Note That afterwards this Judgement was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber for the point in Law For all the Judges of the Common Bench and Barons of the Exchequer held That she ought to be charged in the Detinet because she is charged only by the Contract of the Intestate 5 Co. 31. The Case was One died Intestate in the County of York and a Stranger prayed Letters of Administration to be granted to him which was Repealed by the Delegates at York there was an Appeal to the Court of Delegates in the Chancery who did Repeal the former Sentence at York and adjudged that the Party made no Will and granted Letters of Administration to him who Appealed to them The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury granted Administration to a second person and the Arch-Bishop of York to a Third person who made a Release unto the Debtor of the Intestate upon which Release debt was brought by the first Administrator against the Defendant who pleaded the Release made to him And whether this grant of Letters of Administration by the Judges Delegates were good or not was the Question But the better Opinion of the Court was That the Letters of Administration which were granted by the Judges Delegates was not good but there being Bona Notabilia the Administration was to be granted by the Arch-Bishop And it was said That if the Party who died Intestate had Goods in several Provinces both the Arch-Bishops there having a Peculiar might grant Letters of Administration and although the King be Supream Ordinary and by Delegates may do many Acts yet the Court of Delegates cannot do this nor have they power to Prove any Wills for the power of the Judges Delegates is Potestas Delegata corrigere non exequi And the Court said That it was adjudged in one Brakenburies Case That the Judges Delegates had not power to grant any Letters of Administration An Exception was taken to a Declaration because the Plaintiff conveyed his Interest to an Administrator to whom the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury did grant the Administration of all the Goods of the Lessee and did not shew how the Arch-Bishop granted it either as Ordinary or by his Prerogative And this was held by all the Court a material Exception But it was afterwards alledged That all the Presidents in this Court viz. B. R. and in C. B. were so in general without special shewing how and for that they would not change the Presidents they disallowed the Exception And in this Case it was held That if an Administrator doth grant Omnia bona catalla sua a Term which he hath as Administrator doth not pass for it is not suum but he hath it in right of the Intestate But if one hath a Lease as Executor or Administrator of the Mannor of D. and he granteth all his right and interest in the Mannor the Term which he hath as Executor c. doth pass for he had no other Right in it and his intent is to pass it but by general words it shall not pass Debt against the Defendant as Administratrix she pleaded Plenè Administravit the Jury found That the Intestate was indebted to divers by Obligations and that after his death the Defendant had taken in the Obligations and had obliged her self to pay the greater part of the summs contained in the Obligations at certain dayes to come and for the residue had promised to the parties That in consideration of delivery in of the said Obligations that she would pay c. And by the Opinion of Anderson Windham and Periam it was held clearly a good Administration so that the property of the Goods of the Intestate to that value were altered and changed in the Defendant Action Sur Trover And Declares as Administrator of J. S. and that Administration was committed to him by A. B. Official to the Bishop of Peterborrough and sheweth not that he was Ordinary of the Place or that the granting of Administration did belong to him and this matter after Verdict was alledged in Arrest of Judgement but because divers Presidents had been so and that such Declarations had been allowed the Court did give Judgement for the Plaintiff Debt as Administrator to one Philips and Declares That Administration of the Goods of Philips was committed to him per Adrian Vane Sacrae Theologiae Doctorem such a day apud Monmouth and the Plaintiff recovered in the Common Bench by default and Writ of Errour was thereon brought and the Errour Assign'd because it is not shewn that Vane was Ordinary of Monmouth nor that the committing of Administration appertained to him and in regard it was in a Declaration which ought to be certain and he is not a Bishop nor any person who may be intended to be the Ordinary the Judgement was therefore reversed It was moved by Coke the Queens Atturney That the committing of Administration being by the Arch-Bishop although he had not Goods in divers Diocesses because it is in his Province wherein he hath Jurisdiction it is not void but only voidable by Sentence and it is not like to an Administration committed by another Bishop of the Goods of a man who died in another Diocess or who had Goods in divers Diocesses and this difference hath been taken and agreed in the Queens Bench c. But the Justices said it was all one and the Administration is void in both cases and not voidable only Debt upon an Obligation of One hundred pound one of the Defendants was Out-lawed the other pleaded that he who was Out-lawed was made Executor and solely Proved the Will and Administred and that the Defendant as Servant unto him took divers of the Testators Goods by his Delivery and by his appointment had sold them
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
from the deceased 4. If an Executor Sued do plead that he never was Executor nor Administred as Executor for that must be added then if Issue be taken upon this Plea and it be found against him the Plaintiff shall have Judgement to Recover not Dammages only but the Debt it self out of the proper Goods of the Executor if none of the Testators can be found Likewise as it is frequent in use for Executors to pay the Testators Debt with their own monies and to make themselves satisfaction out of the Testators Goods So it is most equal that Executors should with their own money discharge the Arrerages of Rent of those Leases the Profits whereof themselves enjoy by vertue of the Testators Will Therefore where an Executor is sued for Rent behind after the Testators death upon a Lease for years made to the Testator and by him left to the Executor here it shall be adjudged and levied upon the Executors own Goods for that so much of the profits as the Rent amounted unto shall be accounted as his own Goods and not his Testators Again if Executors plead Plene Administra and it be found for them and after that certain Goods of the Testator come to their hands in this Case if he which brought the first Action of Debt bring the same against them again the Action is well maintainable It is also to be remembred That the value upon an Appreyzment in an Inventory is not binding nor much to be regarded at the Common Law either for or against Executors for if it be too high it shall not prejudice the Executor if it be too low it shall not advantage him but the very true value as shall be found by the Jury when it comes in question whether the Executor hath fully Administred or hath Assets in his hands or not is that which is binding in the Law 5. Executors are lyable to satisfie the Obligations made by their Testators though they be not therein bound by Name Also an Action of the Case lyeth against an Executor upon an Assumpsit or the simple contract of the Testator especially where the ground of the Assumpsit is a true and real debt Also the Rationabilis pars bonorum by Custome in some places is maintainable for the Widow and Children against the Executors Also a Detinue lyeth against him for the Goods delivered to the deceased if the Executor doth still continue the possession of them Likewise an Action lyeth against the Executor for arrerages of account found upon the deceased before Auditors Also the Executor of a man that recovereth a Debt upon a Judgement had by the deceased shall be chargeable with restitution if the Judgement be reversed for Errour Also where a Prisoner dyeth in debt to a Goaler for his diet during the time of his imprisonment his Executor is lyable Likewise where one hath a Tally of the Exchequer to receive money of some Customer Receiver or other Officer of the Kings and delivereth it to him he then having money of the Kings in his hands if he dye without paying the same his Executor shall stand chargeable with the payment thereof Also the Executors of an Administrator are chargeable where he did neither pay the Debts nor leave the Goods of the Intestate to the next Administrator but otherwise disposed of them Yet an Executor is not chargeable in an Action of Detinue nor of Account except to the King for the Testators detaining and not paying or answering things received or under his charge 6. But an Executor as hath been formerly implyed is not chargeable for any personal wrong done by the deceased for it dies with his person neither will an Action of Debt lye against him upon the simple Contract of the deceased but an Action of the Case only Neither will an Action lye against an Executor upon an Arbitrement made in the life-time of the deceased albeit it be made in writing Neither will an Action lye against an Executor for Costs given in Chancery against the deceased in a Sute there for it is lost when the party dies And where there be many Executors and all have accepted they must all be joyned in the Sute but if some of them have refused possibly the Sute may be good enough against the rest Otherwise one Executor cannot be charged without his Co-Executors except it be in the Case of Severance and in some special Case where one alone doth the wrong as where one Executor doth detain the Deeds from the Heir 7. Debt brought against the Executor of H. W. The Defendant pleaded That he never was Executor nor Administred as Executor The Jury found That the said H. W. died possessed of divers Goods and that one W. A. was indebted Seven Pound to him which theâ— Defendant had received and for which he had given his Acquittance and that immediately after the death of the said H. W. the Defendant took into his possession all his Goods converted them to his own use enjoy'd them and disposed of them to his own profit at his own will and pleasure And whether upon this matter of Fact the Defendant were Executor or not was submitted to the Court who were of Opinion That this matter of Fact was the Administration as of an Executor and that the Defendant should be charged accordingly Scire Facias upon a Judgement against a Testator in Debt brought against his Executors who pleaded That before they had knowledge of this Judgement they had fully Administred all the Testators Goods in payment of Debts upon Obligations It was adjudged no Plea for at their peril they ought to take knowledge of Debts upon Record and ought first of all unless Debts due to the Queen to have satisfied them It was adjudged accordingly Debt was brought by S. B. against D. B. and others Defendants Executors c. The Defendants pleaded Recovery against them by another in an Action of Debt and shewed the Contents of the Record to which it was Replyed That the Recovery was by Covin to defraud the Plaintiff of his Debt and hereupon Issue was joyned it was found by Verdict for the Plaintiff and agreed by all the Justices That the Judgement should be against the Executor as against the Testators Goods and not as against his own proper Goods being hereunto upon good Advice inclined for several Reasons 1. For that the Plea was a void Plea for the Record which the Defendant pleaded was such as the Plaintiff doth confess and avoid and not like that which is every way false as when one pleads that he never was Executor nor Administred as Executor c. which Plea being every way false and so within his own knowledge also doth for that Reason cause that Judgement in that Case shall be of his own proper Goods 2. Another Reason is That because such Judgement is most agreeable to Reason viz. To give the Plaintiff Recovery of his
Debt out of the Testators and not the Executors Goods which is conceived a more reasonable way than to charge the Executors for that they bear the burthen of the Administration of the deceaseds Will they deserve to have as much favour as Reason will admit and not be charged of their own proper Goods It was further said That if an Executor should be lyable to such Judgement of his own Goods it would be a cause of often refusing the Administration of Testaments for it is a thing of ill consequence to bind Executors in their own proper Goods in any other Cases than have been in fore-time adjudged which Cases were cited out of divers Books but here omitted for brevities sake none of which Cases have any resemblance with this in question Debt was brought against an Executor the Plaintiff Declared upon a simple Contract To which the Defendant pleaded Fully Administred It was found against him and moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Action was against an Executor who is not chargeable in that manner and it was said That when it doth appear to the Court that the Executor is not chargeable the Court ought not then to Judge for the Plaintiff and to this purpose some Books were cited and it was said That the Reason why an Executor shall not be charged upon a simple Contract is for that he is a Stranger and cannot have notice of the Contract and therefore the Law will not have him to be charged for that alone without somewhat else But in this Case it appears that he had notice of the Contract inasmuch as thereupon he pleaded fully Administred and that Plea being admitted it implyes as if he had known of the Contract and therefore when he pleaded that he had fully Administred which was found against him Judgement ought to have been given for the Plaintiff for proof whereof a Judgment was cited which appears to have been given An. 10 H. 6. fol. 15. and 13 H. 6. As the Book sayes in the like Case against an Executor upon a simple Contract All which notwithstanding it was resolved by the Court That the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ giving their Reasons for such their Judgement which for brevities sake are also here omitted Debt against an Administrator upon an Arbitrement made betwixt the Plaintiff and the Intestate in Writing and the Defendant demurr'd thereupon and without argument it was adjudged for the Defendant because the Intestate might have waged his Law But otherwise it were if it had been in debt upon Arrerages of Accounts before Auditors Assumpsit against an Executor upon the Promise of the Testator and in the Declaration it was not averred That he had Assets to pay debts c. But Mich. 29 30 Eliz. It was adjudged that the Declaration was good and the Plaintiff recovered Debt against an Executor upon an Obligation made by his Testator the Plaintiff was Non-suited the Defendant had Costs by order of the Court. Otherwise it is where an Executor is Plaintiff and is Non-suited For it cannot be intended that it was conceived upon malice by him Vid. Stat. 23 H. 8. cap. 15. Debt against an Executor upon an Arbitrement made in the time of the Testator It was demurred in Law whether it lay or not Because the Testator might have waged his Law And adjudged without Argument that it lay not Debt against P. as Executor The Plaintiff had Judgement to recover de Bonis Testatoris And thereupon a Scire Facias was awarded and the Sheriff returned Quod nulla habuit bona Testatoris And the Plaintiff surmiseth that he had wasted the Testators Goods whereupon he prayeth a Scire Facias why he should not have Execution de bonis propriis And ruled by the Court That this Writ shall not be awarded upon the surmise of the party upon a devastation nor in any Case where the Judgement is de bonis propriis unless it be upon return of the Sheriff where he returns a Devastavit Vid. 9 H. 6. 9. 57. Fitzh Execution 9. Scire Facias against an Administratrix to have Execution of a Judgement against the Intestate the Defendant pleaded Quod nulla habet bona quae fuerunt Intestati tempore mortis suae in manibus suis Administranda nec habuit die impetrationis brevis nec unquam postea And it was thereupon demurred and held by all the Court that it was not any Plea for a Judgement cannot be answered without another Judgement and it may be she had Administred all the Goods in paying debts upon Specialties which is not any Administration to bar the Plaintiff Or as some said it may be she had paid Debts upon a Statute or Recognizance which is not allowable against a Judgement But Anderson denied it for there is not any Priority of Debts upon Record unless in Case of the Queens Debt which is first to be paid And here the Defendant ought to have pleaded specially how she had Administred Wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff The Defendant pleaded Out-lawry in the Testator 29 Eliz. not reversed and it was thereupon demurred Herne for the Plaintiff moved That it was not any Plea because admitting it to be a Plea it should be in regard of the Testators being Out-lawed he could not have any Goods but what appertained to the Queen and then the Executors might not have any Goods to satisfie But that is not so for the Testator might have a debt due to him upon a Contract which is not forfeited or it might be the Testator Devised Lands to be sold and which are sold the money is Assets in their hands and in 3 H. 6. 17 32. it was holden to be no Plea And of that Opinion were Walmesley and Owen For a person Out-lawed may well make a Will and have Executors over and besides the Goods forfeited to the Queen as in the Cases before put and others of the same nature But Beamond è contra for the Bar is good to a common intent and these kind of Assets shall not be intended unless they be shewn Wherefore primâ facie the Plea is good Anderson absente Adjournatur Afterwards for defect of pleading without regard to the matter in Law it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 8 Ed. 4. 6. 21 Ed. 4. 5. 39 H. 6. 27. Errour of a Judgement in C. B. against Three Executors The Errour Assigned was That one of them died pending the Writ before Judgement And Warberton moved that this was Errour but when one of the Executors Plaintiffs die this is no Errour for they might be served But the Court held it no Errour 3 H. 7. 1 3. 8 Ed. 3. 11. Scire Facias against Executors upon a Judgement against their Testator in debt They pleaded that before they had any knowledge of this Judgement they had fully Administred all the Testators Goods in paying of debts upon Obligations and it was thereupon demurred and
be Administrator and have Administration of Leases as well as of personal things because he hath them as an Executor in anothers right and not to his own use Yea it is also said that a Bastard an Excommunicate or an Out-lawed person may be as able and as absolute an Executor as any other Also Infants may be made Executors but the performance of that Office shall not be committed to them untill they have attained unto the Age of seventeen years To the first forementioned may be added Corporations which although lawful ones yet may not stand Executors unless they can duely Prove the Will and take an Executors Oath Finally note that what hath been here formerly said of Executors may be also applyed to and understood of Administrators CHAP. VII Of an Executors Executor 1. That the Executor of a sole Executor is Executor to the first Testator 2. That an Executors Executor cannot perform a Trust committed by the first Testator 3. An Executors Executor hath nothing to do with the first Testators Goods where there is a surviving joynt-Executor 4. In what Case an Executors Executor shall have to do with the first Testators Goods when the surviving joynt-Executor shall not meddle therewith 1. AN Executors Executor where there is no joynt-Executor is Executor to the first Testator as he is to the second and consequently hath a right to all the profit and is liable to all the charge that the first Executor had or was subject unto yet with this caution and difference that the one Testators Goods shall not stand charged for the other Testators debts but each for his own respectively And if in such case the Executors Executor assume the Administration of the first Testators Goods he cannot afterwards refuse the Administration of the Goods of the later Testator but he may accept the later yet refuse the former but not è contra Also an Executors Executor shall not be admitted to Administer the Goods of the first Testator where the first Executor who was his Testator refused to Administer or died before Probate unless all the residue of the first Testators Goods after the debts paid be given in the Will to the first Executor 2. Where a special trust is by Will recommended to an Executor as to sell Lands c. This being not performed in his life-time shall not be performable by his Executor after his death Contrariwise it is of an interest as to take the profits of Lands for certain years towards payment of Debts and Legacies or for recovery of Rents of Inheritance left unpaid in the Testators life-time 3. If Two Executors be appointed whereof one maketh his Testament wherein he nameth his Executor and dieth his joynt-Executor surviving in this Case the Executor of the Executor is not to be joyned with the said joynt-Executor surviving neither in the Execution of the Will nor in Suits or Actions And if such Executor of the Executor have any Goods which did belong to the first Testator the surviving Executor of the same first Testator may have an Action against such Executors Executor for the same Insomuch that if the surviving Executor doth afterward die intestate yet may not the Executors Executor meddle with the Goods of the former Testator for the power of the Executor who died first was determined by his death the other then surviving And the Judge in this Case may commit the Administration both of the surviving Executor who died afterwards intestate and of the Goods of the former Testator not before Administred And if the Executor of the Executor who died first meddle with the Goods of the first Testator he may be sued by the Creditors of the first Testator as Executor in his own wrong But where there is no joynt-Executor there most things which concern immediate Executors extend also to the mediate or more remote Executors that the mediate Executor in the fourth fifth or further degree stands in like manner Executor to the first Testator as the first and immediate Executor and may sue or be sued as the former 4. Suppose Two Executors whereof One refuses to Prove the Will and Administer the other Proves it Administers and dies Testate In this Case the Executor of that joynt-Executor that so Proved the Will shall be the first Testators Executor and the surviving Executor so formerly refusing shall not now be admitted to intermeddle therewith because his Election determined at his Co-Executors death But it is otherwise where the surviving Executor hath accepted the Executorship for in that Case he shall have the sole disposing of the Estate and the Co-Executors Executor is not to intermeddle therewith but to surrender to the other what Goods belonging to the first Testator happen to be in his Custody Errour the Errour assign'd was That W. E. had brought debt upon an Obligation by the name of W. E. Administr Bonorum Catallorum A. E. durante minori aetate of J. E. Executor of the said A. E. Executor of R. E. and demands a Debt upon an Obligation of Twenty nine pound made to the said R. E. the first Testator whereas he could not bring an Action by this Name but as Administrator of R. E. But it was said that Administration of the Goods of R. E. being committed to him by this name omnium Bonorum c. A. E. it may well be committed to him by this Name especially when A. E. did not die Intestate but made an Executor 10 Ed. 4. 1. That by the grant of the Administration of the Goods of the Executor Administration is by it granted of all the Goods of the first Testator 27 H. 8. 7. Curia Contra clearly For by this Administration committed he hath no Authority to meddle with the Goods of the first Testator and for this cause the Judgement was reversed Debt against the Executor of an Executor The Defendant pleaded that the Executors Testator had fully Administred and that he had nothing in his hands at the time of his death and it was found that he had Assets Whereupon a Fieri facias issued to the Sheriff and he returned that the Defendant had nothing And it was held that the Sheriff should be amerced for he should have stopt making such Return And that it should be no prejudice to the Plaintiff for that the Debt shall be charged so long as the Record remains in force not Reversed by Errour nor Attaint And if he hath no Goods of the Testators he shall be charged of his own proper Goods For that when he pleaded that the first Testator had fully Administred he did not say that Assets did not come to his hands after his Testators death CHAP. VIII Of an Executor in his own wrong 1. Who is an Executor in his own wrong and what Acts make him such 2. How far an Executor in his own wrong is chargeable and how impleadable 3. What Acts shall not make a
thousand five hundred pound upon a special Verdict the Case was That W. M. had received annually out of the Exchequer Fifty pound as a Fee for his Diet for Thirty years together which was paid him by the Command of the Lord Treasurer who had Authority by Privy Seal to make allowance and payment of all Fees due but in truth these were not any due Fees And whether his Executor shall be charged with these Summs so received was the Question And after Argument it was adjudged that he should be charged for it was held That this payment of the money by the appointment of the Lord Treasurer was not allowable for the Privy Seal is not sufficient Authority to dispose of the Queens Treasure unless where it is due and he disposing of it otherwise it is out of his Authority 2. It was held That this money delivered by Authority of the Lord Treasurer who is quasi a Judicial Officer and it was quasi a Judicial Act by him yet it shall not bind the Queen for it was without his Authority and without warrant to make allowance thereof not being due and it is at his peril who receives it or demands allowance thereof For these and other Reasons mentioned in the Report it was adjudged for the Queen against the Defendant and although he were Executor he should answer for it as a debt from the Testator 11 Co. 90. b. Errour upon a Judgement given in an Assumpsit against an Executor upon a Promise of the Testators where the Plaintiff declared That the Testator in consideration of Marriage promised to pay the Plaintiff One hundred pound and for non-performance of this promise brought the Action and Judgement there given for the Plaintiff and this matter was assigned for Errour that the Action lay not against an Executor and all the Justices and Barons besides Clark Baron held it to be Erroneous for this cause For Anderson said The Reason why Debt lies not against an Executor upon a Contract of the Testators is because the Law doth not intend that he is privy thereto or can have notice thereof and he cannot gage his Law for such a debt as the Testator might and when debt will not lie it is not fit that this Action upon a bare Promise should bind him for it stands upon one Reason And if these Actions should be allowable it would be very mischievous wherefore the Judgement was reversed Q. Whether a Recovery in this Action against an Executor is allowable against a debt upon an Obligation if it should be an Administration for then it would be mischievous to Creditors and if it should not be an Administration it would then be mischievous to Executors that they should be charged therein and not have allowance thereof against other Creditors for it may be that at the time of the Recovery they did not know of other debts Note that this Term was given the like Judgement betwixt Griggs and Helhouse in an Action brought against an Administrator upon a Promise of the Intestates to pay money c. Debt against the Defendant as Administratrix of J. S. upon plene Administravit pleaded it was found by Verdict That the Testator at the time of his death had Goods to the value of One hundred pound and was bound to another by Obligation in One hundred pound and that the Defendant had taken in this Obligation and made another in her own Name with Sureties to the Obligor And upon the motion of Heale the Court held That this was an Administration and it is in the nature of a payment and so much of the Testators debt is thereby discharged and so it was said to be adjudged in Woods Case Nota fuit Ruled accordingly Pasch 30. in C. B. which was entered Mich. 28 29 Eliz. inter Stamp Hutchins Action upon the Case on Indebitatus Assumpsit doth well lye for every debt implyes a Promise and it is one good consideration in Facto whereon to found an Action But for a debt by simple Contract due by the Testator no Assumpsit lies against Executors and it was openly delivered by Popham Chief Justice No. 44 Eliz. to be the Resolution of all the Judges and to be a President in all Cases that might after happen It was agreed by Yelverton Williams and Crook Justices That if a man by Indenture lease Land to J. D. for years rendring Rent and J. D. dye making A. his Executor the Lessor may have Action of Debt against the Executor for the Rent reserved and the Arrears thereof after the death of the Lessee albeit the Executor never enter nor agree to the Lease for the Executor represents the Testators person and the Testator by the Indenture was stop'd and concluded to pay the Rent during the Term upon his own Contract and albeit the Rent exceeded the value of the profit of the Land yet the Executor cannot waive the Land but notwithstanding that shall be charg'd with the Rent Vid. Opin Ascue 21 H. 6. 24. 11 H. 4 Contr. Action Sur Trover and Conversion of Goods upon demurrer the Case was The Ordinary committed Administration of the Goods of an Intestate to the Defendant afterwards the next of Kin sues out a Citation in the Ecclesiastical Court against the Defendant to Repeal that Administration and he pendente Lite sells those Goods and afterwards his Administration is Repealed and Administration committed to the Plaintiff who for this Conversion pendente Lite brings this Action and it was moved for the Defendant that this Action lyes not for the Administration at the Common Law is well committed and the Statute doth not alter the Law in this point but gives a penalty against the Ordinary if he commits them not to the next of Kin and the Administrator till Administration Repealed hath an absolute Authority to dispose of the Goods as he pleaseth Tanfield è contra The Conversion pendente Lite in the Ecclesiastical Court is not lawful but is a Tort to the Plaintiff and that the Sentence there proves which is that all things attempted or done pendente Lite shall be void and the Justices ought to have regard to the Civil Law in this point as in 27 H. 6. Guard 118. 2 R. 2. Quare impedit 143. and 4 H. 7. 13. And by the Sentence it appears that the Administration is revoked as if it never had been and upon this reason it is in Dyer 339. where an Administrator recovered a debt and afterwards another procured himself to be joyned in the Administration and released the debt and afterwards it being revoked this release was not any bar to the execution And Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Common Bench between White and Cary this very point was in question and adjudged that the Action lay Gawdy The Action well lies for the Sentence doth not repeal mean Acts done by an Administrator which are for the Intestates benefit but forasmuch as these Goods were not converted
Appeal It is a good Cause to stay the Sute until the Appeal shall be determined In this Case it was also said That the same was not like unto a Writ of Errour for by the purchasing of a Writ of Errour the Judgement is not impeached until the Record be Reversed But the very bringing of an Appeal is a suspension of the first Judgement for the principal matter If an Executor dye Intestate Administration ought to be granted of the first Testator for now he is dead Intestate 21 Ed. 4. 24. 26 H. 8. 7. But if an Executor after Administration dye Intestate and the Ordinary grant Administration of all the Goods of the Executor he may Administer the Goods of the first Testator 10 Ed. 4. 1. Quaere if an Administrator doth make an Executor and dies his Executor shall not have the Administration of these Goods but a new Administration ought to be granted of them 34 H. 6. 14. D. 32 H. 8. 47. 11. Co. 5. Brud 9. b. Adjudged And if an Executor before Probate of his Testators Will doth make his Executor and dye the Executors Executor cannot take upon him the Execution of the first Testament but Administration of the first Testators Goods is to be granted cum Testamento annexo D. 22 23 Eliz. 372. 8. CHAP. XXXIV Of Succession in the Right Line Descendent 1. What the Jus Repraesentationis is or that several Children by one Father deceased do Conjunctim represent the Person of that Father 2. That Succession when the Case so requires is to be computed in Stirpes not in Capita 3. That the Grand-Child living the Father succeeds not to the Grand-Father nor by the Civil Law if conceived after his Grand-Fathers death 4. How the Succession according to the Civil Law is in Case of Children not all of them by the self-same Parents and how at Common Law 1. NExt to the Widow this Right of Succession in the Right Line descendent is the first degree of Right to the Administration of an Intestates Goods for they are in the first place admissable to such Administration who are of the Right Line descendent from the deceased So that if a man dye Intestate leaving behind him Children Parents and Collateral Kindred the Children do in the first place Succeed as to the Goods whereof he died Intestate exclusively to the Grand-Children whose Parents are living It is otherwise if their Parents be dead for if a man dye leaving one Son and one or more Grand-Children by another Son deceased these Grand-Children are Admissable together with that living Son their Uncle And this is Jure Repraesentationis whereby several Children of one Father do Conjunctim represent the Person of that Father But yet this must be understood according to the Law-Terms not in Capita but in Stirpes only that is not according to the several Branches or by Poll as we use to say but according to the one Common Root of those several Branches and therefore put all the Grand-children together they can have no greater proportion among them all than singly belonged to their Father were he then alive So that in the foresaid case the Estate is to be divided into Two equal parts whereof one Moity is due to the Son the other Moity to the Grand-children to be equally divided amongst them And this Right or Law of Representation holds in infinitum in the Right Line descendent contrary to the Opinion of the Famous Bartol who held that it reached not beyond the Great Grand-children 2. In like manner if there be divers Grand-children by divers Sons deceased and no Son living they succeed to their Grand-Father in Stirpes not in Capita that is as aforesaid not according to the distinct number of the several Grand-children but according to the number of their Fathers or Sons to the Intestate so that the Grand-children by each deceased Son to the Intestate shall Conjunctim and amongst them all respectively have just that proportion which their respective Fathers or Sons to the Intestate could challenge if they had been alive at the time of the Intestates decease so that Two Grand-children by one Son have no more than one Grand-child by another Son because the Son by whom are the Two Grand-children to the Intestate could have no more than the Son by whom there is but one Grand-child in case both the Sons had been living when the Intestate died Indeed if there be no Grand-children save only by one Son then they succeed equally according to their number unless they be in unequal degree as Grand-children and Great Grand-children And the reason why Succession goes in Stirpes not in Capita is because they succeed not in their own right but in the right of their Ancestor 3. A Grand-child whilst his Father is alive hath not the precedent right to the Administration of the Goods of his Grand-Father dying Intestate nor doth a Grand-child succeed to his Grand-Father unless he be born at least conceived at the time of his Grand-Fathers death So that a Grand-child conceived after his Grand-Fathers death is not in his own person by right of Representation according to the Civil Law Admissable to succeed his Grand-Father And that which hitherto hath been said of Sons and Grand-Sons holds true in Law as to Daughters and Grand-daughters who are equally with the other Admissable to a succession of their Intestate Parents Goods without any distinction of Sex 4. Whereas the Law is That Children shall succeed equally to the Administration of their Intestate Parents Goods this must be understood only of such Children as are begotten of the self-same Parents for if there be Children by divers Parents as if a Woman hath had Two Husbands and one Child by the First Two by the Second In this case each of them respectively succeeds according to the Civil Law only to the Goods of his own Father but all of them equally to their Mothers And this also by the same Law holds true as to the Grand-children by such Children of each marriage respectively Otherwise it is if a man hath had two Wives with Goods and Children by each of them and dye Intestate leaving no Relict or Widow for in this case all the Children by both Wives shall equally succeed to the Goods and Chattels of their Father dying Intestate In the case of a Prohibition granted to the Ecclesiastical Court for granting Letters of Administration to a Sister of the half blood when there was a Brother of the whole blood who sued for them It was agreed by the Court That it is in the power of the Ordinary to grant Administration either to the Brother of the whole blood or to the Sister of the half blood at his Election because they are in equal degree of Kindred to the Intestate But if Administration be granted to the Husband and Wife where the Husband is not of Kin to the Intestate but a Stranger in such case if he survive his Wife