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
in Reversion whereof no Entry can be made nor can any man therein be Executor of his own wrong and therefore the first Sale to Burgess before Administration is utterly void At the Kings Bench in Debt all the Justices of England being Assembled at Serjeants Inn it was Adjudged That an Executor of his own wrong cannot pay himself either Debt or Legacy Debt against one as Executor the Defendant pleaded that the deceased died Intestate and that certain of his Goods came to the Defendants hands and that Administration was committed to J. S. to whom he delivered the Goods It was adjudged no Plea in regard he had once made himself chargeable to the Plaintiffs Action as Executor of his own wrong he shall never discharge himself by matter ex post facto Note in an Action of Debt brought against A. as Executor in his own wrong he pleaded ne unque Executor and it was found against him and Execution was awarded against him for the whole debt viz. Sixty pound for his false Plea although in truth he had not intermedled but with one Bedstead of small value and so it was said it was adjudged 40 Eliz. in C. B. in Kitchin and Dixons Case CHAP. IX Of a Child in the Womb made Executor and of an Infant-Executor as also of an Executor and Administrator durante Minoritate 1. Whether the Child in the Womb may be made Executor 2. At what age an Infant-Executor may Administer 3. What Acts may or may not be done by an Infant-Executor 4. To whom the Right of Administration doth belong durante Minoritate 5. Divers Cases Reported in the Law pertinent to this Subject 1. THe Child in the Womb may be made Executor insomuch that when such is so appointed if the Mother bring forth Two or Three Children at that one Burthen they are all to be admitted Executors The Law is also the same as to a Legacy given in like manner which is to be equally divided amongst them 2. Though an Infant how young soever he be may be Executor or unborn as aforesaid yet the Execution of the Will shall not be committed to him until he attain the Age of Seventeen years for Administration granted durante Minoritate ceases when the Infant-Executor attains to that Age of Seventeen years And if it be a Female-Infant and married to a man of Seventeen years of Age or more it is then as if her self were of that Age and her Husband shall have the Execution of the Will and Administration thereof This limitation of Seventeen years comes in by the Canon not by the Common Law 3. Although an Administration granted durante Minoritate doth as aforesaid cease when the Infant-Executor doth attain to the Age of Seventeen years yet betwixt that Age and the Age of Twenty one years such Executor cannot Assent to Legacies howbeit upon satisfaction really made he may release a debt due to the Testator for although his Actings unconformable to the duty and office of an Executor bind him not yet such acts as are conformable to such an office done by him during his Minority that is till he be of the Age of Twenty one years for till then the Common Law holds him a Minor are binding and good in Law 4. Until the said Age of Seventen years the Administration is to be committed to some other as to the Father or to the Guardian or Tutor of the Child who during such Minority cannot sell or alienate save in cases of necessity nor Set a Lease for a longer term than the Executors Minority 5. E. R. Executor of W. R. brought his Action on the Case against T. P. supposing that divers of the Testators Goods came to the Defendants hands c. In which Action the Defendant pleaded a Release from the Plaintiff Whereunto was replyed That the Plaintiff was within Age at the time when he gave such Release and whether such Release was a bar upon a demur in B. R. was the question where it was adjudged that it was a void Release The matter was after removed and brought before the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber by a Writ of Errour where all the Justices of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer held That the Judgement in that point was good and that it was no Errour for they said that an Infant-Executor cannot Acquit Release or Discharge a Bond without receiving the money due thereupon otherwise he might through his own folly or ignorance charge himself of his own proper Goods which is not allowable in an Infant to do by a Release or Acquittance without some other Act but if upon a single Bond or Obligation he receive the money and make an Acquittance or Release they held that was good and the Infant should be bound thereby but by other means the Obligation could not be discharged and they all held That when a single Obligation is made to an Infant and he during his Infancy receive the money and make an Acquittance he shall be bound thereby Action is brought against the Defendant as Administrator of J. S. during the Minority of D. Issue joyn'd and found for the Plaintiff It was alledg'd in Arrest of Judgment That the Declaration was not good because non constat whether D. were Seventeen years of Age at the time of the Action commenced at which time the Defendant-Administrators Authority is determined but it was adjudged That the Plaintiff is not to shew or set forth that matter 1. Because the Plaintiff is a stranger to the Defendants power 2. Because the Defendant by joyning issue hath admitted that his power continues Biss makes Katherine his Wife and John his Son aged one year his Executors K. Proves the Will alone and marries the Plaintiff and they without the Son bring Action of Debt as Executors against the Defendant who pleaded in abatement of the Writ that John was made Executor with Katherine and that he was yet alive not named c. The Plaintiff replyed That John was not above one year of Age that Katherine had Proved the Will and had Administration committed to her during his minority c. Whereupon Yelv. demurr'd and adjudg'd for the Defendant quod Billa cassetur for that in truth they are both Executors and ought to be named in the Action and albeit that Katherine by the Administration committed to her durante Minori aetate hath the full power yet the Infant ought to be named for that she hath affirmed him to be an Executor Debt as Administrator to A. L. durante minori aetate W. L. the Executor upon an Obligation and averrs that W. L. was within the Age of Twenty one years The Defendant pleaded an ill Bar and it was thereupon demurr'd but because the Court was resolved upon Conference with divers Civilians openly in Court That the power of an Administrator durante minori aetate doth cease at the
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
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
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
a Testament otherwise it is for the most part held they may 9. An Action of Debt was brought against J. S. as Administrator of J. D. The Defendant pleaded that the Intestate was Out-lawed at the Suit of J. N. after judgement and so being Out-lawed died Intestate It was resolved That the Plea was not good for it is but a Plea by Implication that he hath not any Goods and so but Argumentative And Trin. 37 Eliz. in C. B. Rott 2954. Wolley and Bradwells Case was vouched to be adjudged accordingly and therefore the Court upon the view of the Record in Wolleys Case gave judgement that in the Principal Case it was no Plea If Debt be brought against an Executor and he pleadeth that his Testator was and died Out-lawed it was holden in that case that this doth not prove a Nullity of the Will for then he might have pleaded that he was never Executor but it tends only to this that no Goods did come to his hands for satisfaction of the Testators Debt by reason of the Out-lawry A man Out-lawed to a personal Action may make Executors for he may have Debts upon Contract which are not forfeited to the King Consequently for the same reason Administration of such a mans Goods may be granted If an Exigent for Felony be awarded against a man whereby he loses all his Goods yet he may make Executors to reverse it for there he is not attainted So Administration of such a mans Goods may be also granted CHAP. XIII Of Conditional Testaments 1. When a Testament may be said to be Conditional 2. What words sufficient to express or imply a Conditon 3. The difference between Conditio and Modus 1. THe Testament may then be said to be Conditional when the Executor is therein Conditionally assigned and appointed for the assignation of the Executor is the Life and Soul of the Testament Now the assignation of the Executor is conditional when such a suspensive quality is added thereto as thereby the effect of the disposition is for the time impeded and dependeth on some future event 2. Many and divers are the words which do express or imply a condition in a Last Will or Testament whereby the Testament it self or the disposition of the Testator therein becomes conditional Such are the words following viz. if when whiles which what person who whosoever and sometimes the Ablative case absolute Also these words following viz. except unless otherwise until whensoever as much as in as much as for as much as seeing that to which end to the end that for this purpose so far as so long as also prepositions when they serve to or govern the Accusative Case as By and To yea and when they govern the Ablative Case as With if it so appears to be the Testators meaning And in a word every part of Speech whatsoever it be that suspendeth the disposition of the Testator in expectation of some future event doth either express or imply a Condition 3. Conditio is an annexed Quality which so long as it dependeth unperformed hindereth the effect of the disposition And Modus is a moderation whereby a charge or burden is imposed by the Testator in respect of some commodity which hinders not the effect of the disposition in so strict and exact a manner as Conditio doth And as Conditio is commonly known by the word if so Modus for the most part is known by the word that CHAP. XIV Of the several kinds of Conditions incident to Testaments 1. The distinction of Conditions 2. The Law of Possible Conditions 3. The Law of Arbitrary Casual and mixt Conditions 4. The Law of Affirmative and Negative Conditions 5. Conditions Impossible Unlawful and Captious are ineffectual 6. Necessary Conditions of no force in Law 1. AS many and various are the words and expressions which are as the signs and landmarks of a condition so no less manifold are the divisions and subdivisions in the Law of Conditions themselves but as to our purpose we shall content our selves with a few and reduce them all to these following viz. Conditions are either 1. Possible and they are either Casual Arbitrary or mixt which consist either in Chancing Giving or Doing and are either Affirmative or Negative Or 2 dly Impossible either in respect of Nature of Law of Persons or of Contrariety Or 3 dly Necessary and that in respect either of Fact or of Law And thus all Conditions relating to this subject may be reduced to one of these Three Heads viz. either Possible Impossible or Necessary As for Captious and Vnlawful Conditions they fall in construction of Law under the second head of this distinction 2. Possible Conditions must first be accomplished before the effect can take place unless it sticks not with nor may be imputed to the party on whom the Condition lies wherefore such Condition is not performed for in such Case the Condition will be accounted as accomplished specially if the Condition be Arbitrary and the party not in Mora nor Culpa why the same is not indeed accomplished And here Note that every Possible Condition ought to be precisely observed or performed neither is it sufficient save in some cases to accomplish the same by any other means or in any other manner than is prescribed unless it may appear that the Testator did more respect the end than the means or unless the party in whose favour such Condition was made doth consent unto other means or unless the Condition be when something is disposed in pios usus or unless the Law allows other means than the precise form which is prescribed And whereas it is true in Law what hath been said That when it doth not stand by him to whom the Condition appertaineth wherefore the Condition is not performed it ought to be for the most part accounted as accomplished though indeed and in truth it remains unaccomplished and whereas this is generally true when the Condition is meerly Arbitrary and the party to whom the Condition was injoyn'd not in fault wherefore the Condition is not accomplished so as that an impediment shall be said to excuse a man from delay in the matter of performance of Conditions yet notwithstanding all this when the impediment may be foreseen and prevented such impediment shall not excuse him who doth not avoid the same But when the impediment of performing a Condition doth proceed from the Testator himself then the Condition is reputed for compleat though not accomplished and in that case it shall prejudice neither the Executor nor the Legatary In like manner when the impediment doth proceed from a third person the Condition is to be accounted in Law for accomplished unless such third person were ignorant of the Testators Will. But when the performance of a Condition is hindered by the Will and Providence of God there the Law doth not allow any
Executors Age of Seventeen years and that Administration committed after that Age of the Executor is meerly void and notwithstanding this averment here the Executor might be above the age of Seventeen years and within the age of Twenty one years It was therefore adjudged Quod Quaerens nihil caperet c. 5. Co. 29. Trespass upon a special Verdict the Case was Jackson Lessee for years by several Leases of divers Lands some of them in the Diocess of York some in another Peculiar in the same Diocess devised all these Leases to his Son and made his Daughter within Age his Executrix the Mother takes Administration durante minori aetate of the Executrix in F. the Peculiar where the Testator died ad Commodum proficuum Executricis the Administratrix granted this Term durante minori aetate of the Executrix to the Plaintiff Whether the Grant were good or not was the principal Question The Court resolved that it was not good For such an Administrator hath but a special property ad proficuum Executoris but not a general property as another Executor or Administrator hath and therefore his sale of Goods unless they be Bona peritura or it be for necessity for the payment of debts which he is chargeable to pay it shall not bind But he may sue and be sued and yet his Authority is but a limited Authority and therefore like as if Letters ad Colligendum bona Defuncti were granted to one there he may sell bona peritura as Fruit or the like 2. It was moved whether the Assent of an Administrator durante minori aetate to the devise of a Term or the Assent of the Executor himself during his minority to such a Devise be good Anderson said That an Executor at the Age of Eighteen years may Assent but whether the Assent by such an Administrator be good or not they doubted 3. It was moved whether Administration should in this case be granted at Two places viz. the one within the Peculiar the other by the Arch-Bishop of York Ordinary of the Diocess or whether he should have the Prerogative in both as he had where Bona Notabilia were in divers Diocesses And it was resolved That there should be two Letters of Administration granted for the Arch-Bishop shall not have any Prerogative here because this Peculiar was first derived out of his Jurisdiction wherefore c. 5. Co. 29. Errour of a Judgement in Debt in C. B. The Errour assigned was because the Plaintiff sues by an Atturney where he was an Infant and ought to sue by Guardian But because the Action was brought by him as Administrator so that he sued in auter droit Infancy is no impediment unto him no more than Out-lawrie and therefore he might well sue by Atturney and it was thereupon adjudged for the Defendant that the first Judgement should be affirmed Note that if an Infant sue and not as Executor he must then sue by his Guardian vid. Case Bartholomew vers Dighton Hill 37 Eliz. B. R. in Cro. Rep. part 1. Pl. 22. Debt upon an Obligation made to the Testator The Defendant Pleaded a Release made by one of the Plaintiffs The Plaintiff replyes That this Release was made without any consideration and he who Released was within Age at the time of the Release made and it was thereupon demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff that it was a void Release being by an Infant without consideration In the Case between A. and M. as Administratrix of J. during the minority of L. It was among other things Objected That the Plaintiffs Declaration was not good because it is brought against her as Administratrix durante minori aetate of L. And it is not averr'd that the said L. was yet within the age of Seventeen years sed non allocatur for true it is that if one brings an Action and entitles himself as Administrator durante minori aetate of one such he ought to shew that he is yet within the Age of Seventeen years as Co. 5. fol. 59. Pigots Case For that he is to take Conuzance how long his Authority shall continue and he ought to shew it to enable himself to the Action But when he brings the Action against one as Administrator durante minori aetate there such Plea need not be shewn for so long as the other continues his medling he shall be sued and the Plaintiffs need not take Conuzance of the age of the other as c. And here if her Authority were determined it should be shewn on the Defendants part therefore the Judgement was affirmed Note it was resolved by all the Justices of England That the Release of a Debt or a Duty by an Infant Executor after Probate made of the Will is not good because it should be a Devastavit and charge the Infant of his own Goods and also it should be a wrong which an Infant by his Release cannot do and also because it is not pursuant to the Office of an Executor Infant Executor Administration was committed durante minori aetate debt was brought against the Administrator and then the Infant came of full age and the Justices very much doubted whether the Action did abate A Guardian Recovered a debt on an Obligation made to an Infant the Defendant paid the Principal and Costs and prayed that the Guardian might be ordered to acknowledge satisfaction The Court said That a Guardian or an Infant or Executor may not acknowledge satisfaction for more than they receive and for so much they ordered the Guardian to acknowledge satisfaction And made an Order that no Execution should issue for the residue If an Administration be repealed from one and granted to another which was only durante minori aetate and that other bring the first Administrator to account and after give him a Release yet the Infant at his full age may compell the first Administrator to account to him again and the former account to such second Administrator shall not Bar him for such Administrators Release is not good unless for some such cause as for which it ought to be made It was by the Chief Justice of the Queens Bench demanded of the other Justices there Assembled upon hearing of Causes If one make an Infant his Executor that Releases a Debt due to him as Executor without receiving the summ due which receipt if it be good will be a Devastavit by the Infant of the Goods in his hands whether such Release shall bind the Infant or not It was agreed by them all That such Release is void for an Infant by his own Laches and Folly shall not prejudice himself Yet a Feme Covert Executrix may receive money without her Husband which was due to her Testator and give an Acquittance for the same and if she gives an Acquittance for debt which causes a Devastavit the Release shall be good and the Wife and Husband bound thereby the reason is
his Suit is in anothers right viz. the Testators But he that is Excommunicate cannot proceed in Sute as Executor yet this Excommunication pleaded doth not abate or overthrow the Sute but makes that the Defendant may stay from answering his Sute until the Plaintiff be absolved and discharged from his Excommunication 5. Although one Co-Executor cannot Sue another for possession of the Testators Goods for that many Executors to the same Testator are but as one man and no man can Sue himself So that when the Testator doth make divers Executors if any one of them doth get the Goods or the possession of the Goods of the Testator the other Executor hath no Action for recovery of the same Goods or any part thereof for the said Reason that one Co-Executor cannot Sue another nevertheless if the Testator make divers Executors and do bequeath to the one of them the residue of his Goods it is not only lawful for him to whom they are so bequeathed to retain the same but also if the other Executor enter thereunto he is subject to an Action of Trespass Also if the Executor of a Co-Executor have any Goods belonging to the first Testator the other surviving Co-Executor of the first Testator may have an Action against the Executor of that deceased Co-Executor for the same Also if there be Two Administrations granted together he that is the rightful Executor or Administrator may Sue the wrongful Administrator for the Goods in his custody 6. Executors may not Sue for the Goods of their Testators in the Court Ecclesiastical but at the Common Law Yet in some Cases an Executor may Sue in the Ecclesiastical Court as touching his Testators Goods as when a man bequeathes Corn growing or Goods unto one and a stranger will not suffer the Executor to perform the Testament for this Legacy he may Sue the Stranger in the Ecclesiastical Court But if a man take from an Executor Goods bequeathed for this the Executor must Sue his Action of Trespass and not Sue in the Ecclesiastical Court Also Tenants may be Sued but at the Common Law by Executors or Administrators for Rents behind and due to the Testator in his life-time or at the time of his death and may for the same distrain the Land charged with the Rent 7. A Woman and another person were made Executors the Woman took Husband who did not alter the property of the Goods of the Testator and then the Wife died it was adjudged That the other Executor might have an Action of Detinue against the Husband for the same Goods Debt brought by an Executor as due to his Testator and Judgment given for him but before Execution the Plaintiff died Intestate and the Ordinary committed Administration of the Goods of the first Testator to another who Sued out a Scire Facias on the Judgement All the Justices agreed That the Scire Facias did not lye For that when the Executor died Intestate the Testator was dead Intestate also whereby the Judgement and Recovery was void Detinue brought by an Executrix against her own Husbands Executor the Case was this One Falconer who was the Plaintiffs first Husband made his Will gave divers Legacies and towards the end of his said Will said The Residue of all my Goods I Give and Bequeath to Frances my Wife whom I make my full and whole Executrix of this my Last Will and Testament to dispose for the wealth of my Soul and to pay my Debts and died indebted to divers persons to whom the said Frances paid the said Debts and all the Legacies having then Goods in her hand for which this Action was now brought she having after married one John Hunks who made the Defendant his Executor to whose hands the said Goods came Whereupon the Court demurred and Judgement was that the Plaintiff should recover for notwithstanding the Devise viz. of the Residue as aforesaid she hath them not as a Devisee but as Executrix because the words of the Devise can have no other intendment than that she should enjoy them as Executrix Debt brought by the Executrix of J. T. against W. B. The Case was this The said W. B. caused a Writing to be made and sealed which he delivered to V. C. to deliver to J. T. as his Act and Deed Accordingly the said V. C. offered the same to the said J. T. as the Act and Deed of the said W. B. But he utterly refused to receive the same as such notwithstanding which the said V. C. there left the said writing which matter the Defendant pleaded and said it was none of his Act whereupon was a demur and Judgement given for the Plaintiff Debt upon an Obligation Conditioned That if the Defendant in Michael Term then next ensuing in the Prerogative Court of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at London should give to D. his Executors or Administrators such a Release and Discharge from and against him and his Children for the receipt of One Hundred Marks as by the Judge of the Court should be thought meet That then c. The Defendant pleaded that the same Term one S. was Judge there and that the said Judge did not Devise or Appoint any Release or Discharge c. And it was thereupon demurred and adjudged to be no Plea For that it is not alleadged that he caused a Release to be drawn and tendered to the Judge to be allowed for it is on his part in discharge of his Obligation to draw such a Release as the Judge should allow Wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 5. Co. 23. b. Mich. 43 44. C. B. Pl. 42. Debt as Administrator to B. upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff was an Alien under the Obedience of Philip King of Spain Enemies to our Soveraign the Queen and demands Judgement whether he should be Answered and it was demurred thereupon and adjudged that he should Answer Assumpsit By an Executor of a Promise made to his Testator The Defendant pleads non Assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and Judgement for him And Errour was thereof brought and Assigned because he did not shew in Court the Testament in the Declaration mentioned Whereunto it was said That it was but default of Form which is aided after Verdict but all the Court held it to be matter of substance for otherwise he doth not entitle himself to the Action without shewing the Testament For which cause it was Reversed Debt upon a Special Verdict the Case was A Parson made a Lease for years rendring Rent at Michaelmas or within a moneth next after The Lessee Enters the Lessor dies within ten dayes after Michaelmas Whether his Executor hath any remedy for this Rent was the Question and Ruled that he had not for the Rent was not due in the Testators time nor until the end of the moneth And in such Case it hath been adjudged that such
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
after Argument at the Bar adjudged for the Plaintiff that it was not any Plea For they at their peril ought to take cognizance of debts upon Record and ought first of all unless for debts due to the Queen wherein she hath a Prerogative to satisfie them and although the Recovery was in another County than where the Testator and the Executors inhabited it is not material But if an Action be brought against them in another County than where they inhabit and before their knowing thereof they pay debts upon Specialties that is allowable wherefore it was adjudged accordingly Vid. 4 H. 6. 8. 21 Ed. 4. 21. Debt against an Executor who pleaded he had reines in ses mains but certain Goods distrained and impownded it was adjudged to be no Assets to charge him The Case was A. Covenanteth with B. to put his Son an Apprentice to C. or otherwise that his Executors shall pay B. Twenty pound A. doth not put his Son an Apprentice to C. and dyeth B. brings debt against the Executors of A. and it was Resolved by the Court That it lyeth not for Two Reasons 1. It cannot be a debt in the Executor where it was no debt in the Testator And if one Covenants to pay Ten pound debt lyeth against him or his Executors as 40 Ed. 3. 28 H. 8. Dyer are but if he doth Covenant that his Executors shall pay Ten pound an Action lyeth not against them 2. The first part of the Deed sounds in Covenant and the second part shall be of the same nature and condition Q. of this Reason Note Assumpsit by the Testator lies against his Executor in Case the Debt riseth upon a Loan and Promise of the Testator to pay and the Promise be for the payment of a meer debt and not to do any collateral Act and where the Testator himself by reason of such Promise could not have waged his Law in such Case his Executor is chargeable but upon a meer collateral Promise of the Testator an Assumpsit lies not against his Executor Such was the Opinion in Q. Eliz. time but now in Reg. Jac. the Opinion of both Courts was and resolved That the Action against the Executor lies as well in the one Case as in the other Scire Facias Sued by H. against W. Executor to his Father for Execution of a Judgment obtained against the Testator The Defendant pleaded Plenè Administravit at the time of bringing the Action and thereupon they were at Issue and the Jury found That the Testator conveyed a Lease in trust to one Fisher against whom the Executor had recovered One Thousand pound in Chancery which was come to the Executors hands Et si super tota materia c. Two Points in this Case were argued at the Bar and Bench 1. Whether the Plea of Plenè Administravit at the time of bringing the Writ were good in that Judgement was given against the Testator in his life-time and it was Ruled that it was not good but that in such Case the Executor should have pleaded There was nothing in his hands at the time of the Testators death because the Judgement bound him to satisfie that debt before others but by the joyning of Issue the advantage of that exception to the Plea was waved 2. Whether the Summ Decreed in Equity in the Chancery shall be Assets and they all agreed it should be Assets because the Jury found that by vertue of the Executorship it was come to the Executors hands 9 Eliz. Dyer 264. And money arising of the sale of Lands by Executors shall be accounted Assets Chapman and Daltons Case Plowd Also Dammages recovered by Executors pro bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris shall be Assets Vid. Pasch 39 Ed. 3. and C. B. Ordinary and Godfreys Case W. And others brought D. against the Defendant as Executor he pleaded Plenè Administravit And it was found by Verdict That the Defendants Wife was made Executrix who to defraud the Creditors had made a Deed of Gift of the Goods before her marriage with the Defendant and yet retain'd them in her possession and took the Defendant to Husband and died and the Defendant had now as much goods in his hands as would suffice to pay the Creditors their debts And the Court adjudged for the Plaintiff for that the Defendant confess'd himself Executor by pleading Fully Administred and therefore is chargeable because the property of the Goods passed not out of the Wife by that Grant being fraudulently made as aforesaid by the Stat. 13 Regin One sued an Executor in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Legacy who pleaded Recovery in debt against him at Common Law and beyond that he had not Assets wherewith to satisfie To which the Plaintiff in the Ecclesiastical Court Replyed That the Recovery was by Covin and that the Plaintiff in the Recovery offered to discharge the Judgement and the Defendant would not And hereupon the Question was whether a Prohibition should be awarded or not And it was Resolved That it should not be awarded for that the Covin or Fraud is properly examinable in the Ecclesiastical Court because the Legatee cannot sue for his Legacy at the Common Law Action upon the Case of Trover of Goods The Case was this a Recovery in the Exchequer was had against the Executor of P. of Debt and Dammages and Fieri Facias issued de bonis Testatoris si c. And if none then Damna de propriis the Executor dies the Sheriff levies Execution of the Testators Goods before the Return of the Writ and adjudged good notwithstanding his death after the Test of the Writ B. brings Debt against H. on a Demise for years to one unto whom H. was Administrator And the Writ was in the Debet and Detinet Whereupon in Arrest of Judgement it was shew'd in B. R. That it ought to have been in the Detinet only because against an Administrator But it was adjudged That it was good in the Debet and Detinet because the Rent due incurr'd in the Administrators time and the Land is not Assets but only so much of the Profits as the Land is worth above the Rents and the Administrator shall not answer for more than the Land is worth deducting the Rent But in all Cases where an Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a Duty Testamentary there it ought to be in the Detinet only because the Duty being demanded ought to be Assets An Executor is not chargeable for a Debt due by the Testator upon a simple Contract Regularly an Executor shall not be charged without Specialty in any Action wherein the Testator might wage his Law for that an Executor cannot wage his Law of other mens Contracts 46 Ed. 3. 10. b. 11 H. 6. b. Information in the Exchequer in nature of an Account was brought against D. Executor of W. M. supposing that W. M. had received money of the Queens amounting to One
the Executor de bonis Testatoris and not de bonis Propriis And after a Devastavit return'd by the Sheriff and not before against the Executor or Administrator a new Execution is directed to the Sheriff to levy the debt de bonis Testatoris and if there be none of them to be found in his hands then to levy them de bonis Propriis Executoris vel Administratoris Therefore if an Executor or Administrator be sued by a Creditor and the Executor or Administrator plead a Plenè Administravit generally or plead specially that he hath no more but to satisfie a Judgement or the like and upon tryal this issue be found against him and that he hath in all or in part enough to satisfie the debt In these Cases the Judgement is de bonis Testatoris and thereupon an Execution is as in other cases to levy the debt de bonis Testatoris in the hands of the Executor or Administrator and the Costs de bonis Propriis And upon the Return of the Sheriff a special Execution doth issue forth to levy the money de bonis Testatoris And if it appear that he hath wasted the Goods then that he shall satisfie the Execution de bonis Propriis And hereupon also the Plaintiff may if he please have a Capias against the Body or an Elegit against the Lands of the Executor or Administrator and other course of Proceedings cannot nor may be had in this Case against the Executor or Administrator But a Sute Commenced against an Executor as Administrator or against an Administrator as Executor will prove invalid for neither the one nor the other is chargeable with the payment of Debts or Legacies in such an Erroneous Sute But where an Action of Debt was brought against Two Executors whereof the one appeared and confessed the Action the other making default thereupon Judgement was given to Recover against them both de bonis Testatoris in their hands and Execution accordingly And upon this Execution the Sheriff returned a Devastavit against that Executor only that made default and hereupon a Scire Facias went out against him alone and afterwards an Execution against him alone de bonis Propriis And in a Fieri Facias upon a Recovery against Executors the Sheriff Returning a Devastaverunt a Writ of Execution issues against the deceaseds Goods and if there were none such then against the Executors Goods 9. If one by Bond or Covenant oblige himself to pay such a summ of money at such a day not mentioning his Executors at all yet is the Executor also bound as included in the Name or Person of the Testator For if a man bindeth himself his Executors are also bound though they be not named in the Bond but so it is not of the Heir And in this respect the Executor doth more actually represent the person of the Testator than the Heir doth the person of the Ancestor So that every Bond or Covenant by the Testator made for payment of money or the like though he doth not Covenant for nor bind Himself and his Executors by express words reacheth unto his Executor also although he be not named And yet the Heir is not bound if he be not expresly named by the word Heir though there be never so great Assets or Land descended to him And although Executors do so represent their Testators persons that they stand lyable for their Debts though not mentioned in the Bonds yet where a man is bound that he will not sue upon such a Bond and dies if his Executors afterwards sue this is held to be no forfeiture of the Bond. So where one is bound to pay Ten pounds within a moneth after Request made to him and he dies before Request made it sufficeth not to make it to the Executor And although in a Judgment had against a Testator in his life-time no mention be made of his Executors yet are they lyable in that case for to debts upon Record and to debts and dammages already recovered against the Testator and to debts by recognizance the Executor is lyable though he be not named So likewise do Executors stand charged with other inferiour debts upon Record as Issues forfeited Fines imposed by Justices at Westminster or at Assizes Quarter-Sessions Commissioners of Sewers and the like 10. An Obligation made after a Contract dissolveth the Contract So that if a man do make a Contract to pay certain money for a thing bought by him if he make an Obligation for the money the Contract is discharged and he shall not have an Action of Debt upon the Contract And therefore if A. and B. do bargain with C. to pay him One hundred pound for Corn or other things and afterwards C. taketh some Writing Obligatory of A. only and then B. dieth in this Case the Executors of B. are discharged because they stood charged only by the Contract which is extinguished by the said specialty for such writing Obligatory doth determine or drown any duty by a meer Contract because Specialty is of a higher nature And although an Executor not named in the Obligation be notwithstanding bound as aforesaid supposing also that he that is named in the Testament hath in due form Proved the same yet is he not thereby lyable or obliged to satisfie the Creditors of the deceased as one that hath Administred unless also he hath paid the Fees due for the same out of the Goods of the deceased It was Adjuged that if an Executor pay a debt of his Testators with his own proper Goods he may retain as much in value of the Testators Goods And 6 Ed. 6. in debt by Shelley vers Sackvile Executor of H. Brown he pleaded Plenè Administravit and upon Evidence the Plaintiff shewed That the Defendant had a Farm belonging to the Testator in his hands to the value of Two hundred Marks the Defendant shewed how he had expended Two hundred Marks in payment of the Testators debts And the Question upon the Evidence was whether the Defendants Plea was receivable And upon Consultation with the Justices of B. R. it shall be received to maintain the Issue of Fully Administred for so much as it amounted unto because to make such a Retainer and Deduction as to alter the property is one and the same F. H. Executrix of F. brought Detinue of Goods against A. The Case was F. had made a will in writing and thereby given many Legacies and at the end of his Will gave the Residue of his Goods to F. his Wife whom he made his sole Executrix for the payment of his debts and to dispose thereof for the wealth of his Soul F. the Wife after takes H. to Husband who made A. the Defendant his Executor and died and against A. doth F. H. bring Detinue for the Goods of F. And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because F. H. doth not here take the Residue of the Goods as a Devisee
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
they both live but after her death it may be otherwise yea and if a void Administration happen to be committed and the Administrator wast the Goods and then Administration be committed to another in this case the former Administrator may be charged by the Creditors for the wast done in his time 4. But for an Executor or Administrator without fraud to sell the Goods of the deceased under value especially where more cannot conveniently be made of them is no wast Nor shall one Executor or Administrator be charged for the wast done by another for where there are many joynt-Executors if only one of them doth commit the wast he alone shall suffer for it So the Executor or Administrator committing Wast in the Gift or Sale of any of the Goods of the Defunct shall answer it alone and not he to whom the Goods are so given or sold yet the Executor or Administrator of such an Executor or Administrator shall not be question'd for it after his death Also an Executor or Administrator may lawfully sell or convert the deceaseds Goods to his own use so as he convert the money thereof to the deceaseds use in payment of Debts or the like and pay so much of his own money as the Goods so converted to his use are worth and this shall not be imputed to him as a Wast Yea he may sell any special Legacy that is bequeathed and even this shall be no Wast in him though it be a wrong to the Legatee in case there be Assets to pay Debts besides But when he hath enough to pay all the Debts and Legacies then he may dispose of the whole Estate how he please without any prejudice to himself or others And note That the wasting Executor doth not incurr dammage or make his own Goods lyable for satisfaction for the Wast further than the value of the Testators Goods so wasted or mis-administred doth amount unto An Action of Debt was brought against Two Executors one appeared and confessed the Action the other made default and Judgement was given to recover de bonis Testatoris in both their hands whereupon a Scire Facias issued The Sheriff returned Nihil but he who made default had wasted the Goods upon which a Scire Feci issued against him who had wasted the Goods and upon Return of the Scire Feci Execution was awarded of his own proper Goods only without his Co-Executor 5. If the Executor confess he hath Assets supposing the Executor to be Defendant then may the Sheriff Return a Devastavit If the cause of Action be against Executors or Administrators the Judgement is to recover the Debt and Dammages of the Testators Goods if the Executor hath so much in his hands and if he hath not then the Dammages as was formerly shewn of the Executors or Administrators own Goods And if the Sheriff upon a Scire Facias Return a Devastavit then a Fieri Facias or Elegit may be sued out to levy the Debt and Dammages of the Executors or Administrators proper Goods And if the Executor plead That he never was Executor nor Administred as Executor and it be found against him that he had Administred but one penny the Judgement shall be to recover the Debt and Dammages of the Executors own Goods And in a Case of Debt brought upon a Record the Execution shall be brought where the Record remains Judgement was given against B. in a debt of One hundred pound in C. B. After the said Judgement he entered into a Statute to J. S. and died Intestate his Wife takes Letters of Administration and removes the Record of the said Debt recovered against her Husband into B. R. by Errour depending the Sute she payes the Debt due upon the Statute to J. S. Afterwards the former Judgement is affirmed On a Scire Facias against the Administratrix to have Execution she pleaded payment of the said Statute beyond which she had not Assets Upon this the Justices of the Kings Bench were divided viz. Popham and Gaudy against Fenner and Yelverton It was referred to the Opinion of the other Justices they joyned in Opinion with Fenner and Yelverton and judged it a good Plea and that the paying of the Statute was no Devastavit for at the time of the Execution of the Statute she could not plead the Judgement of C. B. it being then doubtful whether it would be affirmed or not therefore no default in the Wife-Administratrix in paying and discharging the Statute for she could not have an Audita Querela nor any other Remedy to be freed from payment of the Statute at the time of the Execution thereof CHAP. XXVII Of the Executors power in Sale of Lands devised to be sold 1. The difference between a Devise that the Executors shall sell the Land and a Devise of the Land to the Executors to be sold 2. The profits of Land Devised to be sold are not Assets in the Executors hands for a time before such Sale 3. In what Case the Heir may or may not enter upon unsold Lands devised to be sold 4. Executors accepting may without others Refusing make a good Sale of Lands devised to be sold 5. In what Case surviving Executors cannot sell Lands devised to be sold 1. WHere Land is by Will appointed to be sold neither the money raised nor the profits shall be accounted as any of the Testators Goods or Chattels And when a man deviseth that his Executors shall sell the Land there the Land in the mean time descends to the Heir and until the Sale be made the Heir may enter and take the Profits But when the Land is Devised to his Executors to be sold there the Devise taketh away the Descent and vesteth the State of the Land in the Executors and they may Enter and take the profits and make sale according to the Devise Also when a man deviseth his Land to be sold by his Executors it is all one as if he had devised his Land to his Executors to be sold because he then likewise deviseth the Land whereby he breaketh the Descent 2. If a Testator doth appoint by his Will his Executors to make sale of certain Lands for the use and behoof of the said Testator and the Lands after the Testators decease happen to remain some time unsold the Profits thereof in the said time before such sale made shall not be Assets in the Executors hands unless the Testator did devise That the mean Profits till the Sale should be Assets in their hands for otherwise they shall not be so though the Executors in this Case have no Estate or Interest in the Land but only a bare and naked Power and Authority 3. But if the Executors having power to sell the Land of the Testator defer the Sale thereof after the offer of a reasonable price converting the Profits thereof to their own use the Heir may lawfully Enter to the Land and put out the
his Execution shall have the preferment and before suing of Execution the Executor may give precedency to whom he will and may if he please satisfie the Recognizance before the Statute at least if he do it before Execution sued thereupon But Executors under pretence or colour of Recognizances for the peace or good behaviour or the like or under pretence of Statutes for performing Covenants touching the enjoying of Lands not forfeited nor any summs of mony possibly ever thereupon becoming payable are not to with-hold payment of debts by Specialty and thereby defraud the Creditors so that if the Statute or Recognizance be only for performance of Covenants and no Covenant be broken an Obligation for the payment of present money shall be discharged before it Also no Judgement or Statute that is discharged or is left and suffered to lye by agreement to bar others of their debts shall bar debts upon Obligations And here Note That a Statute is a more expedite remedy than a Recognizance for upon a Statute Execution may be taken out without any Scire Facias or other Sute which cannot be in the Case of a Recognizance for there if a year be pass'd after the acknowledgement no Execution can be sued out against the party himself acknowledging it without a Scire Facias first sued out against him and if he be dead then though the year be not pass'd yet must a Scire Facias be sued 6. After Statutes and Recognizances debts due by Obligations and penal and single Bills are to be paid if there be yet Assets And if there be divers Obligations then it seemeth to be in the power of the Executor to discharge which he will first unless the day of payment in the one Obligation be expired and in the other not yet come in which Case the Obligation whereof the day of payment is expired is to be first satisfied or unless a sute be Commenced for one of the Obligations for then it is not in the Executors power in prejudice of that sute to discharge an Obligation for which no Action is brought But if Two several Creditors bring several Actions against the Executor upon Two Obligations he that first getteth Judgement must first be satisfied Yet a debt due upon Record may be paid depending the Action and although in case of several Obligations when the time of payment upon the one was come at the time of the Testators death not so upon the other and he to whom the Obligation is whose time of payment was expired at the Testators death forbear to demand or sue for his debt untill the other Obligation become also payable In this Case it is then in the Executors power to pay which he please if the Goods extend not to pay both for it is the Commencement of the Sute only which intitles to priority of payment or at least restrains the Executors election therefore an Executor may not pay a debt of equal degree to a Creditor that brings no Action for the same after another Creditor hath brought his Action But whether a bare verbal demand without a sute be sufficient to hinder the Executors payment to the other is a question but resolved in the negative Yet an Executor may make payment of any debt due by Record as by Judgement Statute c. after sute begun by another for some other debt And notwithstanding what hath been said an Executor cannot in all Cases pay him first who first commenced sute but he who first hath Judgement must first be satisfied as when one Creditor doth first begin sute and others suing after him get Judgement before him And in such Cases the Executor may expedite the sute of the one by a quick confession of his Action and retard the sute of the other by Essoignes Emplances or dilatory pleas Nay after sute commenced yet until the Executor hath notice thereof he may pay any other Creditor and then plead that he hath fully administred before notice of the others sute 7. For it is a good Plea for the Executor to say That he had fully Administred before he had notice of the Plaintiffs Writ for though he do pay debts upon Contracts the Writ depending against him upon a Bond whereas he had no notice of the sute he shall not be in such case charged Yet regularly in this case of an Action brought upon a simple Contract the Executor is to plead and to set forth those debts upon Specialties yet debts upon a simple Contract are to be paid before debts of Charity Likewise debts upon a simple Contract are to be paid before amends for a Tespass done by the Testator And here Note that between a debt by Obligation and a debt for Dammages upon a Covenant broken there is not any priority or precedency but the Executor may pay which he please first But if one hath a debt due to him from the deceased upon a simple Contract or the like and he sue the Executor for it when there be debts due to others upon Bonds and Bills unsatisfied in this Case the Executor may not pay this debt nor may he suffer the Plaintiff to Recover in his Action unless he hath Assets sufficient to satisfie the Bonds and Bills over and above that of the simple Contract 8. After Obligations Debts due upon simple Bills or Merchants Books or other Specialties are to be satisfied and discharged though indeed Bills are of the nature of an Obligation and charge the Executor as well as an Obligation for whatever words prove a man to be a debtor or to have another mans money in his hands or wherein the Testator if he were alive could not wage his Law shall charge the Executor And under this Head may be placed debts due upon Shop-Books and some verbal Contracts and Covenants Parol 9. Now debts due for Rent upon Leases of Land or Grants of Rent will come into Consideration though some are of Opinion that debts due for Rent in the Testators life-time be the Rent reserved upon Leases made by or without Deed for years or at Will are in equality of degree with debts due upon Specialties if the Rent grew due since the Testators death then it is not in Law accounted the Testators debt for only so much is in Law accounted Assets to the Executor as the Profits of the Lease amounted to over and above the Rent so as for that Rent so behind the Executor himself stands debtor and therefore is sueable in the Debet and Detinet whereas for the Rent behind in the Testators life-time and all other the debts of his Testator he must be sued in the Detinet only For this reason it is that an Executor sued for debt upon Bond or Bill cannot except in some special cases plead a payment or recovery of Rent grown due since the Testators death though of Rent behind at the time of his death it be
That in the Principal Case the substance of it was the Possession and not the Administration It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Pasch 27 Eliz. in C. B. Carter and Crofts case Godbolt 33. Vid. Dyer 304. An Administrator brought an Action of Debt for Rent which was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement given Exception was taken that the Plaintiff had not shewed by whom the Letters of Administration were granted to him But the Opinion of the Court was That it was too late to shew that after Verdict for that the Jury have found that the Administration was duly granted And it was said in the Court That in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom the Letters of Administration are granted or to say that they were granted by him cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium Yet Note that it was said in another case That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to shew by whom the Letters were granted to the Defendant but he must shew by whom the Letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle him to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot Sue If an Infant be made Executor Administration during the Minority of the Infant may be committed to the Mother and the same shall cease and be void when the Infant is of the Age of Fourteen years But such Administrator cannot sell the Goods of the Testator unless it be for necessity of payment of debts because he hath the Office of Administrator only pro bono commodo of the Infant and not to its prejudice Note it was resolved per Curiam That an Administration durante minori aetate of an Executrix was not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of necessity to be granted to the Widow of the Testator because there is an Executor all the while otherwise if the Executor were made from a time to come An Infant was made Executor and Administration was granted to another durante minori aetate of the Infant who brought Action of Debt for money due to the deceased and had the Defendant in Execution and then the Executor came of full Age. It was moved that the Defendant might be discharged out of Execution because the Authority of the Administrator was determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction And it was said That he was rather a Bailiff to the Infant than an Administrator But the Judgement of the Court was That though the Authority of the Administrator was determined yet the Recovery and Judgement did remain In an Account brought by an Administrator durante minori aetate against the Defendant as Bailiff of such a Mannor it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Judgement That it is not shewed that the Executor the Infant was within the Age of Seventeen years and it might be he was above the Age of Seventeen years and yet under Age But the Opinion of the Court was That it shall not be so intended unless it be shewed that he was above Seventeen years and especially when the Defendant had admitted him to bring the Action and had pleaded to Issue Between P. and S. the Case was An Infant was made Executor to whom certain Leases among other things were devised and Administration during his Minority committed to one who sold and alienated the Leases It was agreed by the Justices That the Administrator could not sell the Leases unless there were good and reasonable cause moving thereunto as in case there were no other Goods save the Leases wherewith to pay the Testators debts which ought of necessity to be paid the Leases may to that end and purpose be sold otherwise not but Beasts and other things which cannot long be kept or preserved especially fat Beasts Corn or the like may be sold And of this Opinion was the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and the Chief Baron Debt as Administrator of B. upon an Obligation the Case was That the Intestate died in Lancashire but the Obligation was at London at the time of his death and the Bishop of Chester in whose Diocess he died committed Administration to J. S. who released to the Defendant and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury committed the Administration to the Plaintiff and this Release was pleaded in Bar and it was thereupon demurr'd Warberton Every Debt follows the person of the Debtee and Chester is within the Province of York where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath nothing to do Anderson Where one dies who hath Goods in divers Diocesses in both Provinces there Canterbury shall have the Prerogative otherwise there would be Two Administrations committed which is Res inaudita The Debt is where the Bond is being upon a Specialty but debt upon a Contract follows the person of the debtor and this difference hath been oftentimes agreed vid. Dyer 305. And if the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath not any Prerogative in York but that several Administrations ought to be committed yet at leastwise Administration for this Bond ought to be committed to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury wherefore the Release is not any Bar. Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of F. he pleads a Recovery against him as Executor and besides to satisfie that he hath not any Assets And it was thereupon demurred and adjudged to be a good Plea and he shall not be twice charged wherefore it was adjudged for the Defendant Debt against the Defendant as Administratrix of T. H. her Husband upon a Lease to the said T. by Indenture for years and how the Defendant is Administratrix to him And for Rent arrear after his death the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet upon Not Guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and now moved in Arrest of Judgement That the Declaration was not good for that c. And at another day it was moved That this Declaration ought to have been in the Detinet and not in the Debet and Detinet because she hath the Term as Administratrix and is not charged by her own Contract but by an Act of the Testator and to that purpose was cited 19 H. 8. 8. 10 H. 5. 7. And a President was shewn in C. B. between Barker and Kelsay where the Action was brought in the Detinet only And Godfrey affirmed that in Fenns Case in this Court it was Ruled That the Action ought to be brought in the Detinet Gaudy The Action is well brought in the Debet For this Rent though Arrear after the death of the Intestate begun first in the Administratrix and therefore the Action well lies against her in the Debet For the reason why the Action against an Executor shall be in the Detinet is for that the debt grew due by the Testator and therefore it cannot be said that Executor Debet But in an Action against the Heir it shall
And before the said respective Ages of twelve and fourteen years neither of them can make any Testament at all no though it be ad pios usus But at the accomplishment of the said respective Ages each of them may even without the consent of his or her Guardian or Parent if they have any Goods in their own right make a Testament thereof though not of Lands of Inheritance unless the Custome of the place doth enable them for it But before the said respective Ages neither of their Testaments is good though made by the approbation and with the consent of their Guardians yea though they afterwards attain to the said Ages and then neglect to ratifie them But if he or she hath attained to the last day of the said Ages of twelve or fourteen years the Testament so made by him in the very last day of the Age of fourteen years or by her in the very last day of the Age of twelve years is as good and lawful as if the said day were then already expired or if after the accomplishment of the said Ages respectively he or she doth expresly approve and ratifie the Testament made during their minority then is the same made good and effectual by this new declaration thereof 2. Such as are Mad persons can make no Testament during the time of their insanity of mind no not so much as ad pios usus Nay the Testament made at such a time shall not be good though afterward the party recover his former understanding howbeit if such Lunatick persons have any Lucida intervalla or intermissions then during the time of such freedome from the Lunacy they may make their Testaments betwixt the fits And here Note that every person is presumed to be of perfect mind and memory until the contrary be proved So that he that objecteth Insanity of mind must prove the same for which it is sufficient if he prove that the Testator was beside himself or had lost his Reason but just before he made his Testament though he prove not the Testators madness at the very time of making the same unless the contrary be proved or circumstances to induce a contrary presumption For it is a very tender and difficult point to prove a man not to have the use of his Reason and Understanding therefore it is not sufficient for the Witnesses to depose that the person was mad unless withall they render upon knowledge a sufficient reason thereof Neither is one Witness sufficient to prove a man mad nor two in case the one depose of the Testators madness at one time and the other of his madness at another time but both agreeing in time if then the one Witness deposeth of one mad act the other of another mad act at one and the same time these sufficiently prove that the Testator was then mad though they do not both depose of one and the same mad act But in contrary depositions these Witnesses are to be preferred which depose that the Testator was sound of memory And if he used to have some intervals of Reason and it be not certainly known whether the Testament were made in or out of his fits of Lunacy in this case if no argument of frenzie or folly can be collected by the Testament it shall be presumed to be made during the intermissions of the Lunacy and so adjudged to be good yea though it cannot be proved that the Testator used to have any clear and calm intermissions at all provided the same Testament be wisely and orderly made otherwise not For in this case the least word sounding to folly is sufficient to induce a presumption that the Lunatick person had no intermission of perfect Reason and sound Memory at the making of such Testament for one foolish word in that case may frustrate the validity of the whole But if a man who is of good and perfect Memory maketh his Will and afterwards by the visitation of God he becomes of unsound Memory as every man for the most part before his death is this Act of God shall not be a Revocation of his Will which he made when he was of good and perfect memory Cook 4. part 124. Beverlyes Case 3. Ideots are likewise excluded from making Testaments nor may they dispose either of their Lands or of their Goods But he that only is of a mean capacity or understanding or one who is as it were betwixt a man of ordinary capacity and a fool such an one is not prohibited from making a Testament provided that he hath understanding enough to conceive what is the nature of a Testament or Last Will being well informed thereof otherwise he being destitute of such understanding is not fit to make a Will Here Note that by the Laws of this Land he that can measure a yard of cloth or rightly name the dayes of the week or beget a Child shall not be accounted an Ideot or a Natural Fool yet it will not be indisputably granted that an Act so Natural as the begetting of a Child can so qualifie a Natural Fool as to render him in the charitablest construction of Law Testable For if he be such a Natural Fool as that though of Lawful Age yet cannot declare of about what Age he is nor number twenty nor knoweth his Natural Parents by their several names and Relations or the like easie questions such an Ideot is undoubtedly intestable Notwithstanding all which if it may appear by sufficient circumstances and conjectures that such Ideots had the use of Reason and Understanding at such time as they did make their Testaments then are such Testaments good in Law 4. Persons grown Childish by reason of old Age can no more make their Testaments then Children yet old Age alone doth never deprive a man of the power of making his Testament But when a man by reason of extream old Age is become even a Child again in his Understanding or rather in the want thereof or by reason of extreme old Age or other infirmity is become so forgetful that he now knoweth not his own Name he is then no more fit to make a Testament then is a Natural Fool or Child or Lunatick person 5. Such as are Drunk during the time of their being Drunk can make no Testament that shall be good in Law yet understand this as only when he is so excessively drunk that he is altogether deprived for the time of the use of Reason and Understanding being according to the Flaggon-phrase as it were dead-drunk for if he be but so drunk that his Understanding is but somewhat clouded and obscured and his Memory but troubled he may in that case make his Testament and it may be good in Law 6. A. Executor of J. S. brought
an Account against B. as Receiver of the monies of the said J. S. upon Ne unque Receiver pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff and Judgment given that he should Account and being in Custody upon a Capias ad Computandum he was found in Arrearages and his body taken in Execution Afterwards the Will was made void in the Ecclesiastical Court for that the said J. S. was an Ideot from his birth which being certified by Writ into the Chancery and thence by Mittimus into B. R. an Audita Querela was brought by B. setting forth all the said matter whereupon the Court demurr'd It was said by Cook That in 35 H. 8. It had been Adjudged That in that Case the Audita Querela did well Lie The Marquess of Winchester by his Will in writing as supposed Devised divers Mannors to his Reputed Sons Devising further that they should sell divers Mannors and also bequeathed Plate and other Legacies to them This Will was assayed to be Proved in the Prerogative Court but it appearing by circumstances the said Marquess to be Non compos mentis at the time when the supposed Will was made it was moved for a Prohibition in B. R. because a Will touching Lands and a Will concerning Goods were both mixt together and that in Case they should there proceed as to the Goods the same would prevent the Tryal in the Kings Bench where a Will for Land shall be Tryed for which Reason a Prohibition in that Case was generally awarded 2. In that Case it was resolved That a Testator at the making of his Will ought to be of a memory not only to answer to ordinary and familiar questions but also to have a disposing memory so as to be able to make a disposition of his Lands with Reason and Understanding and that That is such a memory which the Law calls Sanae Memoriae CHAP. IX Of Persons Intestable for want of Freedom or Liberty 1. Of Villaines 2. Of Captives 3. Of Prisoners 1. VIllaines are Intestable if their Lord by Entry and Seizing take and enjoy all their Lands and Goods otherwise their Wills are not void but by such Entry and Seizing before Probate they become voidable Except of such Goods whereof such Villains were Executors to others for of such Goods they may not only make their Wills but also maintain actions even against their Lords in case they should take from them such goods as they have by Executorship But of this there is little or no use with us now here in England as in former times 2. A Captive during the time of his Captivity cannot make a Testament yea though he afterwards make an escape yet the Testament made during the Captivity is void but if it were made before his Captivity then after his escape or enlargement it shall be as good in Law as if he had not been Captive at all Likewise he that is alive and in Captivity for the upholding of his Will which he made in his Liberty is feigned by a Legal fiction to be dead the hour before he became Captive so that if he dye in Captivity yet is his Testament so made before his Captivity allowed and his Executor shall have all his Goods as if he had died the day before his Captivity Likewise if any person be taken by a Pirate Turk Infidel or Christian with whom open War is not proclaimed he so taken remaineth a Freeman in construction of Law as to Testability notwithstanding such Capture and therefore his Testament made during such restraint shall be good 3. Persons condemn'd to perpetual Imprisonment cannot make a Testament But a person imprisoned only for debt or the like is not thereby disabled to make his Testament or is his Testament void except it be made in the favour of him at whose Suit the Testator is imprisoned on purpose to extort the same from him CHAP. X. Of Women Covert 1. Women Covert Intestable as to Lands 2. They are Intestable as to Goods without the Husbands License 3. They are Testable as to Chattels by Executrixship 4. They are Testable as to things meerly in action whereof they were not possessed during Coverture 5. Whether they may accept Executrixship without their Husbands consent or the Husband Administer in case of their refusal thereof 6. Cases in the Law concerning this Subject 1. THat Women Covert are Intestable for want of Freedome is not such a general Rule in Law as to exclude all exceptions It is true a married woman cannot make her Testament of any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments specially she cannot devise the same to her Husband though she were not thereto constrain'd by him but would do it of her own accord freely and voluntarily and though such Testament were made before her Marriage with such Legatary-husband And albeit the Wife survive the Husband yet the Testament made during Coverture is not good But yet if after her Husbands death she approve and confirm such Testament made under Coverture then this new Consent or new Declaration of her Will makes the Devise good Also if the Testament were made before Marriage and she out-live her Husband it shall be good Also where power of selling the Testators Land is given to a Wife-Executrix there she may sell even to her own Husband or to whom she please 2. Of Goods and Chattels the Wife cannot make her Testament without her Husbands License for all the Goods and Chattels which the Wife had at the time of marriage and all the Chattels real if he survive the Wife belong unto the Husband by vertue of the said marriage Yet by the Husbands License she may make her Testament even of his Goods yea though the Husband understand not of his Wifes Will yet if after Probate thereof made by the Executors he deliver them the Goods therein Devised he thereby ratifies the Testament though he were not privy to the making thereof for the Goods being once delivered by him according to the tenour of the Will it is then too late for him to revoke the same Otherwise notwithstanding his License given her to make a Will of his Goods he may revoke the same at any time before the Probate thereof Or otherwise having made her Will by her Husbands License he may chuse whether he will suffer it to be Proved for his Consent is necessary as well to the Approbation as to the first making thereof And this extends also to the Goods which she had in her own right before marriage for thereby immediately all Chattels personal and Goods moveable are so devested out of her into her Husband that although she survive him yet they return not to her again but go to her Husbands Executor or Administrator 3. Touching Goods which she hath as Executrix to another the Case is otherwise for such do whether she or her Husband