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
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
there is then another Executor of right against whom the Creditors may bring their Action and such wrongful intermedlers with the Goods when there is another Executor of right are liable to be Sued by him as Trespassers Also if a man perform only acts of Charity or of Humanity as feeding the Testators Cattle or preserve them by taking them into his custody or dispose of them only about the Funerals or make an Inventory thereof or deliver the Widow only her convenient Apparel or as a meer Trespasser entereth to his Goods whether quick or dead converting the same to his own not to the Testators use he doth not hereby become Executor in his own wrong when there is an Executor or Administrator of right But if one deliver to the Widow more of her Apparel than is convenient to her degree or if she take or another deliver to her more than such he or she thereby becomes Executor in their own wrong But if a man lodge in my house and die there leaving Goods therein behind him I may keep them until I can be lawfully discharged of them without making my self chargeable as Executor in my own wrong Or if I take the deceased's Goods by a mistake supposing them to be my own or under colour of a Title this will not make me Executor in my own wrong Or if one do but take a Horse of the deceased's and tie him in his own Stable this makes him not Executor in his own wrong Or if I do only lay up the Goods of the deceased to preserve them in safety for him that shall have right to them This will make me no more chargeable than if I took an Inventory of all the deceased's Goods Nor is an Executor in his own wrong chargeable as such where an Executor of right or Administrator hath fully Administred the deceased's Goods Nor shall any light acts or intermedlings make one an Executor in his own wrong where there is a rightful Executor and a Will by him Proved or Administration committed or where there is another of right to be sued for whoso wrongfully takes the deceased's Goods from the rightful Executor or Administrator makes himself not an Executor but a Trespasser to them though it would have made him an Executor in his own wrong had there not been an Executor by right who notwithstanding the other stands charged with and is liable for the debts of the Testator 4. Whosoever feareth to be adjudged Executor in his own wrong his safest course is not to meddle at all but utterly to abstain from all manner of use of the deceased's Goods and especially let him take heed that he do not sell any of the deceased's Goods nor receive any of his debts nor kill any of his Cattle And if one after wrongful Administration of some of the deceased's Goods take Administration and after such Administration taken be sued by a Creditor for a Debt as Administrator and after such wrongful Administration there remain not Goods sufficient to pay that debt the Creditor can recover no more than remained after such rightful Administration taken because he sued him as Administrator therefore he should in such case have sued him as Executor because he was Executor in his own wrong before he took Letters of Administration and so then the Goods which were Administred before the taking such Letters of Administration must thereby be included to be liable for the debt due to the Creditor otherwise not Therefore Creditors must look before they sue for else they know not whether he so intermedling be Executor or Administrator nor consequently how to found their Action aright and safely for good success since a sute against an Executor as Administrator or against an Administrator as Executor will prove frivolous one Errour in a Foundation may be the Foundation of many in the Superstructure 5. A. brought debt upon an Obligation of forty pound against L. as Executor of P. The Defendant pleaded That P. in his life time was indebted to him in forty pound and that there came to his the Defendants hands Goods to the value but of ten pound which he retained towards satisfaction of his own debt and averr'd that no other goods beyond that value of ten pound came to his hands to be Administred c. The Plaintiff replyed and shewed That the Defendant is Executor in his own wrong to P. and that he hath much other goods belonging to P. to be Administred at S. in the County of N. conclude hoc paratus est verificare c. The Defendant rejoyn'd and demanded Judgement whether the Plaintiff shall be admitted to Plead That the Defendant is Executor in his own wrong inasmuch as himself hath by his Declaration affirmed him to be Executor Testamenti upon which the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law To which point in Law the whole Court would hear the Plaintiff for he could well Reply That the Defendant notwithstanding the Declaration is Executor in his own wrong for there is no other Form de Court as was adjudged in Coulters Case But per tot curiam the whole Plea is discontinued for the Defendant having Pleaded that as to the goods to the value of ten pound he had retained them for debt to himself and that he had no more goods to be Administred it was an Offer of a good issue and then when the Plaintiff replyed that he had other goods c. conclude hoc paratus est verificare it is not good for he ought to have said hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam for that there was any surplusage of goods when denyed by the Defendant and urged by the Plaintiff he ought to have come to an issue but could not by reason of the ill conclusion And in the same Term between Weast Plaintiff and Lane the same Defendant where Weast demanded four pound debt against Lane as Executor ut supra and all the rest of the Plea was ut supra Judgement was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant had confess'd goods to the value of ten pound in his hands which is more than the debt in demand and therefore it being in the judgement of the Law That an Executor in his own wrong cannot retain to pay himself Judgement shall be given only upon the Defendants own confession and so it was Quod nota Yelv. a Counsel pro Quaerent Debt against the Defendant as Executor of J. S. he pleads that he had taken Letters of Administration Judgement of the Writ c. The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant Administred de son tort and after took Letters of Administration Judgement c. And upon this it was demurr'd Godfrey for the Defendant argued That now the name of Executor is lawfully changed before the Action brought and therefore is to be sued by his new name as Administrator 9 Ed. 4. 33. 21 H. 6. 5. 18 H. 6.
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
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
or legally representing their Stocks pro suo cuique jure according to the Lawes in such Cases and in manner and form following That is to say one third part of the said Surplusage to the Wife of the Intestate and all the residue by equal Portions to and amongst the Children of such persons dying Intestate and such persons as legally represent such Children in case any of the said Children be then dead other than such Child or Children not being Heir at Law who shall have any Estate by the settlement of the Intestate or shall be advanced by the Intestate in his life-time by Portion or Portions equal to the share which shall by such distribution be allotted to the other Children to whom such distribution is to be made c. And the Heir at Law notwithstanding any Land that he shall have by descent or otherwise from the Intestate is to have an equal part in the distribution with the rest of the Children c. And in case there be no Children nor any Legal Representatives of them then one Moity of the said Estate to be allotted to the Wife of the Intestate the residue of the said Estate to be distributed equally to every of the next of Kindred of the Intestate who are in equal degree and those who legally represent them Provided that there be no Representations admitted among Collaterals after Brothers and Sisters Children And in case there be no Wife then all the said Estate to be distributed equally to and amongst the Children c. And no such distribution to be made till after one year after the Intestates death nor without sufficient security to be given by those to whom such distribution shall be made for refunding back to the Administrator according to each ones ratable proportion in case of the Intestates Debts afterwards sued for and recovered or otherwise duly made to appear For other Provisoes Rules and Limitations in the said late Act of Parliament the Reader is referred to the Statute it self there more at large Note An Administration cannot be revoked for the not bringing in of the Inventory and the Account of the Administrator And the Ordinary upon an Administration granted had not before the said Statute power to make any distribution of the Surplusage nor to take any Bond for to Answer the Surplusage by the true meaning of the Statute of 21 H. 8. which intends a benefit to the Administrator and not an unprofitable burden The Ordinary hath not power to make distribution of the Goods because there may be a Debt which was unknown and if he might distribute then the Administrator should be charged with the debt of his own Goods Vid. Briersley's Case Brown 1 Part. 31. acc Whether this were Law then is a needless question it being otherwise now by the Statute aforesaid CHAP. XXXIII Of Right to Administration 1. What the Method of Succession is by the Laws of this Realm 2. How the Civil Law understands it 3. The difference between the words Kindred and Consanguinity between Cognatos and Agnatos 4. Whether an Alien no Denizon may be an Administrator 5. Administration granted a Caveat depending is void in Law 1. BY the Law both by the Statute Lawes the Common Law and by the Civil Law the nearest of Kin to the deceased Intestate is to succeed in the Administration of his Goods As first to the Husband or Wife but if they fail then secondly to the Children whether Male or Female but if they fail then thirdly to the Parents whether Father or Mother but if they fail then fourthly to the Brothers or Sisters of the whole blood but if they fail then fifthly to the Brothers or Sisters of the half blood but if they fail then sixthly to the next of Kin as Uncles Aunts c. From these the Ordinary cannot grant the Administration to a Stranger if they seasonably require it and are not otherwise affected by some legal impediment but he may grant it to which of these he please if divers of them in equal degree do desire it yea to a Stranger if they neglect it 2. The Civil Law as to the Intestates Estate whether Real or Personal considers it all under the same Notion yea in this case it makes no distinction either of Ages or Sexes but all that are concern'd may challenge an equal proportion provided they be of equal degree and of identity in blood whether of the whole or of the half blood But the Wife was otherwise provided for by the Civil Law Therefore exempted from a Succession to the Goods of her Intestate Husband There are but Three Orders or Degrees chiefly of Kindred which the Civil Law doth specially take notice of The first is in the Right Line Descendent as Children Grand-Children and so downwards The Second is in the Right Line Ascendent as Parents Grand-Parents and so upwards The Third is in the Line Transversal or Collateral as Uncles Aunts Great-Uncles and so side-wards alwayes remembring that the whole blood is more worthy than the half blood and the nigher Degree more worthy than that which is more remote 3. Consanguineus or Consanguinity and Agnatus properly so called and strictly so taken doth comprehend only them that be of Kin by the Fathers Side Therefore the word Kin or Kindred is of a greater Latitude than Consanguinity because it comprizeth Cognatos as well as Agnatos and so comprehends all the Relations of both Lines both Male and Female for Cognati properly understood signifie only such as are the Mother-Side and of the Female Line And here Note that the most remote Agnati or Kindred of the Line Male in a Right Line Descendent are preferred before the nighest Kindred of the Female Line but it is otherwise in a Transversal or Collateral Line But as to Land in Fee or of Inheritance the Right thereof quasi ponderosum ever descends Downwards in a Right or Transversal Line and never doth Re-ascend the same way that it Descended by the Ancestors death yet it may Ascend à Latere or Sideward for want of Right Heirs in the Descendent Line which often happens 4. Suppose an Alien born and not made Denizon happen to dye Intestate within this Realm having Kindred born beyond Sea and others though more Remote born in this Realm In this Case an Alien may 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 And he may be an Administrator as well as a person Out-Lawed or Attainted may be an Executor and no Prohibition will lye in this Case 5. An Administratrix Sued the Defendant in the Court of Chancery the Defendant shewed That before Administration was committed to the Plaintiff he had put in a Caveat in the Ecclesiastical Court hanging which Caveat the Plaintiff obtained Letters of Administration of which he demanded Judgement pendant the