him a Legacy upon condition that he marry with the consent and according to the good liking or appointment of some other person this condition is unlawful Insomuch that if such Executor or Legatary marry contrary to such restraint or condition he shall notwithstanding be admitted to the Executorship and receive the Legacy as if no such Condition had been expressed 2. Notwithstanding what hath been said the Condition holds good if the Testator make one his Executor or give him a Legacy if he marry not without the Counsel or Advice of another person so that the Testator giving him a Legacy if he marry with the Counsel or Advice of another person he is excluded from the Legacy if he marry without such Counsel or Advice yet in this case he is not bound to follow such counsel or advice but only to request the same Again although the condition of marrying with the consent of another is void so as the party on whom such condition is imposed may obtain the Legacy without such consent yet marry he must or he cannot obtain the Legacy for although the condition of such Consent be unlawful yet must he marry before he can pretend to the Legacy because that part of the Condition is not unlawful CHAP. XVI Of the manner of Proceeding during the suspence of the Conditions 1. The Condition depending Administration may be committed to the Conditional Executor 2. The Law what in case the Condition be not performable by the Executor on whom it is imposed 1. THat Creditors and Legataries may have Remedy during the suspence of the Condition of the Executorship or Legacy it is lawful for the Judge to commit Administration to him that is conditionally assigned Executor yet only for so long time as the Condition dependeth and is not extant or else deficient and when the Condition is extant he may Prove the Will and detain the Goods of the deceased as Executor to the Will but if the Condition be infringed or utterly deficient then ought he to make restitution to the next of Kin to the deceased or to those to whom belong the Administration of his Goods for by breach or defect of the Condition the deceased is reputed to have died intestate or as if he had never made an Executor And the former Administration being forfeited a new may be committed But if the Conditional Executor will not meddle with the Administration of the deceased's Goods when the Condition is performable then may the Judge assign the Conditional Executor a competent time for the accomplishment of the Condition within which time if it be not performed by him and if it be within his power it may be imputed for infringed or deficient Provided that other time for the performance of the Condition be not assigned in the Condition it self And in case of such infringement or deficiency Administration may be committed according to the Statute as of one dying intestate But if the Judge knowing of this Will doth commit Administration to some other without the Executors knowledge or without appointing him some competent time for the accomplishment of the Condition then is the Administrator in hazzard of being sued by the Executor in an Action of Trespass unless the Executor did formerly refuse 2. If the Condition be such as that it doth not lie in the power of the Executor to perform the same then may the Judge at the Petition of the Creditors assign a time to such conditional Executor to undertake the Administration of the Goods which if he neglect or refuse then may the Judge after such time elapsed commit the Administration to such as have Interest untill such time as the Condition be either extant or deficient or else as some think the Judge may grant a Letter ad Colligendum to some other person than the conditional Executor But then Note that such person as hath such Letter ad Colligendum not being Administrator the Actions which otherwise might be brought against the Administrator may now lie against the Judge And though the Judge may grant his Letter ad Colligendum yet he hath not power to give Authority to sell any of the said Goods though perishable And if such person to whom such Letter ad Colligendum is granted should by vertue of such Power sell any of such the said Goods he is suable as Executor to his own wrong CHAP. XVII Of Testaments void 1. By what means Testaments are void Originally 2. By what means they become void afterwards 3. Law-Cases pertinent to this matter 1. A Testament may be Originally void or voidable wholly or in part through some original defect as thus First because the Testator is such a person as cannot make a Testament Secondly because the things bequeathed are not deviseable by Will Thirdly because the manner of the disposition is unlawful Fourthly because the person made Executor is uncapable thereof Fifthly because the Testator was compelled by fear or circumvented by fraud or overcome by immoderate flattery or induced by some other unlawful means to make his Will Sixthly because of errour uncertainty or imperfection Seventhly because the Testator had not Animum Testandi 2. A Testament though free from all Original fault may yet afterwards become void As first by making of a later Testament Secondly by cancelling or revoking that which is made Thirdly by some alteration of the state of the Testator Fourthly by forbidding or hindering the Testator from making another Testament or from correcting the former Fifthly by unwillingness or inability of him that is appointed Executor when he will not or cannot officiate as Executor Sixthly when the Executor cannot be certainly known there being divers men of that name and no distinction made this uncertainty of the Executor maketh void the Will Seventhly when the Testator doth err in the person of the Executor but in an errour of the Name only and not of the Person it is otherwise save in certain Cases hereafter limited Thus a Testament though free from all Original fault may yet afterwards become void but a Testament originally void can never afterwards be made good 3. Errour upon a Judgment given against the Plaintiff in C. B. on a Formedon in Remainder upon special Verdict and found that D. gave instructions for the writing of his Will to give his Lands to one of his Sons for life and the Scrivener by mistake wrote an Estate in Fee and the Court agreed that the Will was utterly void because it was not the Will of the Testator Yet it seem'd to Fenner Justice that for so much as it may be it should be that is for an Estate for life which was his Will but all the other Justices were against him In the Court of Wards between the Co-heirs of Sir William Rider it was declared by Coke Chief Justice of
29. 13 H. 4. Executors 118. Coke contra for when by his tortious Administration he hath given advantage to be sued as Executor he cannot by his own act purge this tort and cause the Plaintiff to sue him by another name but the Plaintiff hath election to sue him one way or other for he shall take no advantage by his own Tort as if one in Execution escapes and is taken away by the Gaoler he shall not have an Audita Quaerela and it will be a mischief if the Plaintiff shall be compelled to sue him as Administrator for it may be that whilst he Administred of his own wrong he wasted the goods and if he be only sued as Administrator he shall only be charged of the goods which came to his hands since Administration 12 R. 2. Administrators 21. And it was afterwards adjudged that the Writ was good and that the Defendant respondra ouster Nota if Judgement be given against an Executor upon Demurrer and Execution be awarded the Sheriff cannot return nulla habet bona Testatoris but is to return a Devastavit as if it had been found against the Executor by Verdict for per Curiam he hath charged himself by his own Plea Debt per c. vers c. as Executor he pleaded Nunques Executor c. and on special verdict found that Administration of the goods of the Testator was committed to the Wife of the Defendant who is dead and that he kept bonam partem bonorum in his hands and sold them Williams moved this Verdict was void for the uncertainty for bonam partem is altogether uncertain but it was held to be well enough for if he detain any part it makes him Executor de son tort and wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Debt against R. as Executor of T. the Defendant pleads that T. died Intestate and that certain of his goods came to the Defendants hands and afterwards Administration was committed to J. S. to whom he had delivered the said goods Et per Curiam it is not any Plea for if Administration had been committed to himself it would not have purged the first tort So here although Administration is committed to a stranger in regard that he hath once made himself chargeable to the Plaintiffs Action as being Executor de son tort c. he shall never after discharge himself by matter ex post facto Wherefore c. Adjournatur vid. 21 H. 6. 8. 9 Ed. 4. 47. 2 R. 3. 20. The Executor of A. brought Action of Debt against B. as Executor of D. upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded that D. died Intestate and that before the Writ brought Administration of his goods was committed to N. who Administred and yet doth the Plaintiff replyed That D. died Intestate and before the Administration granted divers goods of his came to the Defendants hands which the Defendant as Executor of the said D. Administred seu aliter ad suum proprium usum disposuit whereupon Issue being joyned it was found for the Plaintiff for since there was an Executor before the Administration afterwards granted the Plaintiff had cause of Action vested in him which shall not be taken away by such Administration afterwards granted though it be before the Action brought and so much the rather because the goods taken by wrong before the Administration shall not be Assets in the hands of the Administrator till they be recovered or damages for them A Woman Executrix taketh a Husband afterwards they are Divorced upon a Pre-contract the Wife Appeals to the Delegates and pendant the Appeal the Husband Administreth the goods and then dieth It was a Question whether the Husband should be said to be an Executor in his own wrong vid. 2 Jac. Co. 5. par Reads Case 33. That when a man dieth Intestate and a stranger taketh his goods and useth them or sells them he is an Executor of his own wrong for they to whom the deceased was Indebted have not any other against whom they can bring their Actions for recovery of their Debts And so note that the very seisure of goods will make one an Administrator of his own wrong Debt against G. as Executor to H. the Defendant pleads that H. the Testator was bound in a Stat. of One Hundred Pound and besides that he had not Assets and hereupon they were at Issue and a special Verdict found That the Defendant was Executor de son tort demesne and that the Testator was indebted unto him and that he retain'd divers goods to satisfie that debt due unto himself and over and above then to satisfie the Recognizance he had not in his hands c. si c. It was argued by Tanfield and Goldsmith for the Plaintiff and by Coke for the Defendant The sole point was whether an Executor de son tort may retain goods to satisfie himself And Coke moved that he well might and the Plaintiff by this Action against him hath allowed him to be rightful Executor wherefore the finding that he was Executor per tort is not material and he being allowed to be Executor may do all things as an Executor viz. pay Debts or any other Lawful Acts and as he may do it to a stranger so he may pay himself Gawdy and Fenner were of his Opinion For as he shall be charged by reason of his possession Like reason it is he should be allowed all Lawful Acts and this is here a Lawful Act as where c. Popham and Clinch è contra For an Executor de son tort shall never have any benefit by his Malefesance and c. A Precedent was cited Pasch 32. Eliz. in C. B. That an Executor de son tort might not retain to satisfie himself wherefore c. Afterwards upon another day it was moved again and the Court said They were resolved That an Executor de son tort de mesme cannot retain goods to satisfie himself his own debt And Popham said That divers of the Justices in Serjeants Inn to whom he had propounded the Case were of that Opinion and that they were resolved to enter Judgement for the Plaintiff But it was then surmised to the Court that the Defendant was dead and thereupon a stay of Judgement was prayed but the Court would not stay it upon such surmise but upon the Plaintiffs prayer Judgement was entered 5. Co. 20. Ejectione firmae for Whites Closes upon Not Guilty it appear'd upon the Evidence That a Lease for years was granted to one Okeham who died Intestate and Anne his Wife assigned it per paroll to one Burgess and after she got Letters of Administration and made an Assignment thereof to one Kenrick And the Court directed the Jury for Kenrick the last Vendee yet they agreed That if one Enter as Executor of his own wrong and sell Goods and after obtain Letters of Administration the Sale is good but in this Case there is a Term
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
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
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
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
or legally representing their Stocks pro suo cuique jure according to the Lawes in such Cases and in manner and form following That is to say one third part of the said Surplusage to the Wife of the Intestate and all the residue by equal Portions to and amongst the Children of such persons dying Intestate and such persons as legally represent such Children in case any of the said Children be then dead other than such Child or Children not being Heir at Law who shall have any Estate by the settlement of the Intestate or shall be advanced by the Intestate in his life-time by Portion or Portions equal to the share which shall by such distribution be allotted to the other Children to whom such distribution is to be made c. And the Heir at Law notwithstanding any Land that he shall have by descent or otherwise from the Intestate is to have an equal part in the distribution with the rest of the Children c. And in case there be no Children nor any Legal Representatives of them then one Moity of the said Estate to be allotted to the Wife of the Intestate the residue of the said Estate to be distributed equally to every of the next of Kindred of the Intestate who are in equal degree and those who legally represent them Provided that there be no Representations admitted among Collaterals after Brothers and Sisters Children And in case there be no Wife then all the said Estate to be distributed equally to and amongst the Children c. And no such distribution to be made till after one year after the Intestates death nor without sufficient security to be given by those to whom such distribution shall be made for refunding back to the Administrator according to each ones ratable proportion in case of the Intestates Debts afterwards sued for and recovered or otherwise duly made to appear For other Provisoes Rules and Limitations in the said late Act of Parliament the Reader is referred to the Statute it self there more at large Note An Administration cannot be revoked for the not bringing in of the Inventory and the Account of the Administrator And the Ordinary upon an Administration granted had not before the said Statute power to make any distribution of the Surplusage nor to take any Bond for to Answer the Surplusage by the true meaning of the Statute of 21 H. 8. which intends a benefit to the Administrator and not an unprofitable burden The Ordinary hath not power to make distribution of the Goods because there may be a Debt which was unknown and if he might distribute then the Administrator should be charged with the debt of his own Goods Vid. Briersley's Case Brown 1 Part. 31. acc Whether this were Law then is a needless question it being otherwise now by the Statute aforesaid CHAP. XXXIII Of Right to Administration 1. What the Method of Succession is by the Laws of this Realm 2. How the Civil Law understands it 3. The difference between the words Kindred and Consanguinity between Cognatos and Agnatos 4. Whether an Alien no Denizon may be an Administrator 5. Administration granted a Caveat depending is void in Law 1. BY the Law both by the Statute Lawes the Common Law and by the Civil Law the nearest of Kin to the deceased Intestate is to succeed in the Administration of his Goods As first to the Husband or Wife but if they fail then secondly to the Children whether Male or Female but if they fail then thirdly to the Parents whether Father or Mother but if they fail then fourthly to the Brothers or Sisters of the whole blood but if they fail then fifthly to the Brothers or Sisters of the half blood but if they fail then sixthly to the next of Kin as Uncles Aunts c. From these the Ordinary cannot grant the Administration to a Stranger if they seasonably require it and are not otherwise affected by some legal impediment but he may grant it to which of these he please if divers of them in equal degree do desire it yea to a Stranger if they neglect it 2. The Civil Law as to the Intestates Estate whether Real or Personal considers it all under the same Notion yea in this case it makes no distinction either of Ages or Sexes but all that are concern'd may challenge an equal proportion provided they be of equal degree and of identity in blood whether of the whole or of the half blood But the Wife was otherwise provided for by the Civil Law Therefore exempted from a Succession to the Goods of her Intestate Husband There are but Three Orders or Degrees chiefly of Kindred which the Civil Law doth specially take notice of The first is in the Right Line Descendent as Children Grand-Children and so downwards The Second is in the Right Line Ascendent as Parents Grand-Parents and so upwards The Third is in the Line Transversal or Collateral as Uncles Aunts Great-Uncles and so side-wards alwayes remembring that the whole blood is more worthy than the half blood and the nigher Degree more worthy than that which is more remote 3. Consanguineus or Consanguinity and Agnatus properly so called and strictly so taken doth comprehend only them that be of Kin by the Fathers Side Therefore the word Kin or Kindred is of a greater Latitude than Consanguinity because it comprizeth Cognatos as well as Agnatos and so comprehends all the Relations of both Lines both Male and Female for Cognati properly understood signifie only such as are the Mother-Side and of the Female Line And here Note that the most remote Agnati or Kindred of the Line Male in a Right Line Descendent are preferred before the nighest Kindred of the Female Line but it is otherwise in a Transversal or Collateral Line But as to Land in Fee or of Inheritance the Right thereof quasi ponderosum ever descends Downwards in a Right or Transversal Line and never doth Re-ascend the same way that it Descended by the Ancestors death yet it may Ascend à Latere or Sideward for want of Right Heirs in the Descendent Line which often happens 4. Suppose an Alien born and not made Denizon happen to dye Intestate within this Realm having Kindred born beyond Sea and others though more Remote born in this Realm In this Case an Alien may be Administrator and have Administration of Leases as well as of Personal Things because he hath them as an Executor in anothers Right and not to his own Use And he may be an Administrator as well as a person Out-Lawed or Attainted may be an Executor and no Prohibition will lye in this Case 5. An Administratrix Sued the Defendant in the Court of Chancery the Defendant shewed That before Administration was committed to the Plaintiff he had put in a Caveat in the Ecclesiastical Court hanging which Caveat the Plaintiff obtained Letters of Administration of which he demanded Judgement pendant the
cap. 2. h Plow 144. Fitz. Devise 7. a St. 32. H. 8. c. 1. St. 34. H. 8. c. 5 Coke sup Lic III. Perk. Sect. 544. Lit. Sect. 287. Dyer 210. Old N. B. 89 Perk. Sect 500. 539 540. 446. 497 498. A man seized of Land Deviseable Deviseth totum staâ—um suum to one and his Heirs This is good for the Land Dyers Read on Stat. of Wills Sect. 4. §. 6. b Plow 485. c NevillsCase d Plow 144. Fitz. Devise 7. e Adjudged Powscley and Blakemans Case A man Deviseth his Land to Elianor the Daughter of I. S. and he hath divers Daughters whereof one is named Hellen and none Elianor This is a good Devise to Hellen Vid. Dyer's Read Stat. on Wills Sect. 3. §. 15. f Pasch 9. Jac. New mans Case g Co. sup Lit. 386. h Plow 523. 540. Dyer 357. Co. 8. 24. 83. i 38. Eliz. Co. Banc. k Quaere Dyer in his Lect. 1. per Inst Dodr. l Co. 8. 94. Plow 525. m Brownl 80. 1. Part. n Plowd 66. o Plow 343 344. Old N. B. 89. Fitz. Devise 17. p Trin. 37. Eliz. B. R. Breckford vers Parincote q Hill 20. Jac B. R. Loftis vers Baker r Mich. 30. El. in C. B. Geslin Werburrons Case Leon. Rep. p. 137 138. s 5. P. M. vid. Owen 30. Hugh Abridg. t Mich. 24. Car. in B. R. rot 2052. Preston and Holmes's Case Styles 148 149. u Trin. 1649. rot 849. in B. R. Beal and Wyman's Case Styles 240. x 42. Eliz. in C. B. Tayler and Sawyers Case y Trin. 20. Jac. in B. R. rot 811. Knights Case Godbolt 358. z Mich. 2. Car. in B. R. Baffield and Byboro's Case Popham 188. a Dyer's Read on the Stat. of Wills Sect. 3. § 5. b Mich 8. Eli. in C. B. Leon. 3. Part. 11. Hughe's Abr. 3. Vol. in Appen tit Wills Testaments and Devises c Trin. 36. Eliz. Browne and Pease Case Anders Rep. Case 315. d Trin. 37. El. Beckford vers Parnecott Cro. par 3. e Mich 34. El. In the Court of Wards The Lord Cheneys Case Co. 5. part 67. f Mich. 48 39. Eliz. C. B. Bon. vers Smith Cro. par 3. pl. 64. g Trin. 39. Eliz. C. B. Jobsons Case Cro. par 3. h Mich. 41. Eliz. B. R. Yates vers Clinkard Cro. par 3. i Trin. 2. Jac. Horton vers Horton B. R. Cro. par 2. pl. 4 k Mich. 37. H. 8. Anders Case 83. l Mich. 30 31 C. B. Ander Case 117. vid. dict Case m Pasc 5. El. Moo Rep. nu 143. n Mich. 30. El. in c. B. Sir Ant. Denny's Case Leon. 2 Part. 190. Hugh's Abridg. Appen tit Devis o Pasc 16. El. in B. R. Leon. 2. Part. 221. Hughs Abridg. ibid. p Hill 30. Eli. B. R. Carden Tucks Case Cro. 3. Part. 89. Hughe's ibid q Trin. 30. El. B. R. Crickmere Patersons Case Cro. 3. Part. 146. Hughe's ibid. r Mich. 30. El. B. R. Bon Smith's Case Cro. 3 Part. 532. vid. Trin. 39. Eliz. c. B. Johsons Case Cro. 3 Part. 576. Adjudged acc s Pasc 30. El. B. R. Nash Edwards Case Leon. 113. It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the Devise was vaid and Wray Chief Justice said That if he Appoint A. to write his Will and it is Written by B. the Devise is void But if after he ha Written the Will he had Read it to the Devisor and he confirmed it it had been a good Will It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plaintiff being Heir at Law should have Judgement to Recover the Lands against the Three Sisters t Trin. 30. El. Rot. 1160. Whisker Cleytons Case Leon. Rep. p. 156. u Hill 43. Eli. B. R. Beckford Parnecoles Case Goldesb 150. vid. Bret. Rigdens Case Plow Com. 340 w Mich. 45. Eliz. in c. B. Rot. 125. Kerry Dirricks Case Cro. 2. Part. 104. Hughs Abridg. tit Devise x Vid. Plow d Com. 342. in a Bret Rigdens Case a Lit. Broo. Sect. 133. Perk. Sect. 1. 6. Lit. Sect. 586. Kelway 43. Co. sup Lit. 19 20. H. 6. 35. Lit. Bâ— Sect. 432. 19. H. 8. 10. b Dyer Lect. in Stat. Wills cap. 5. §. 1. c Ibid. d Dyer ubi supra cap. 3. §. 3. e Co. 6. 16. Dyer 126. f 18. Jac. B. R. Green vers Dewel g Mic. 13. Jac. B. R. Dyer Sect 307. h Hill 17. Jac. B. R. Adjudge ed. Spicers Case i Trin. 30. El. If I Devise Lands to two equally divided between them they are Tenants in Common But if I Devise Lands to Two equally to be divided between them by I. S. Till such Division be made they are Joynt-Tenants Mich. 31. Eliz. in B. R. Dickons Marshes Case Goldesbr 182 183. k Adjudged Lowen vers Cox Mich. 37 38. El. Com. B. Dyer 25. Lit. Broo. Sect. 133. Lit. 283. Perk. Sect. 170. Dyer 350. l Dyer 326. m Pasch 9. Jac Newmans Cafe Brown Rep. 1. part 131. 169. n Goldsb 141. Plow 53. o Dyer Lecture in Stat. of Wills Sect. 5. §. 13. p Hob. Rep. 7. q Brown 129. 147. 149. 1. part part 2. 272. 177. r Co. sup Lit. 9. Perk. Sect. 57 239 New Terms of Law tit Devise s Trin. 2. Car. in B. R. t Mich. 18. Jac. B. R. Green vers Dewel u Pasch 14. Jac. in B. R. w Perk. Sect. 567. x Trin. 28. El. in C. B. rot 1458. Wiseman Wisemans Case Leon. Rep. 57. 58. y Mich 11. Jac. in C. B. Wedlock Hardings Case Godbolt 208. z Co. 1. part 85. in Corbets Case a Trin. 1651. in B. R. Kirman Johnsons case Styles 293 Mich. 45. Eliz. in C. B. Riches case b Ibid. c Coo. 6. part 16. Colliers case d Trin. 7. Car. in B. R. Rose Bartlets case Cro. 1. part 213. Trin. 14. Jac. B. R. Moo Rep. Gu. 1164. Lowen Bedds case Anders par 2. case 10. Pasch 6. El. Moo Rep nu 162. Pasc 17. Jac. B. R. Spicer vers Spicer Coke the Queens Attourney demanded of the Court A Man hath Two Daughters being his Heirs Deviseth his Land to them their Heirs and dyes Whether shall they take as Joynt-Tenants by Devise or as Coparceners by Descent And all the Justices held clearly That they shall have it as Joynt-Tenants for the Devise giveth it them in another Degree then the Common Law would have given it them and after the benefit of Survivorship between them Anonimus Cro. par 3. B. R. e Dyer's Read on Stat. of Wills Sect. 3. §. 3. f Ibid. §. 8. g Ibid. §. 16. h Ibid. §. 17. i Ibid. §. 18. Mich. 15 16. Eliz. Anders case 100. a Hill 13. Jac. in B. R. Blanfords Case Godbold 266. b Hill 8. Jac. in the Court of Wards Sandays Case Co. 9. part 128. c Terms of Law tit Devise Co. sup Lit. 25. Plow 414. d 27. H. 8. c. 17 e Coo. sup Lit. 27. f Trin. 9.
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
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
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
Fenner held that they should not be Assets for although being but fraudulent it shall be said to be a void Gift against the Donor and Creditor and so lyable to his debt yet it is good betwixt the Donor and Donee and shall not be Assets in the hands of any but the Donor or Donee but here the Husband is a meer Stranger thereto wherefore c. But all the other Justices è contra for that by the Common Law the Gift being fraudulent they are lyable to the Plaintiffs Execution And Popham said If the Gift were good against all but Creditors as it is then they belong to the Donee and in his hands are lyable to this debt and if the Gift be void they remain to the Executors of the Feme and then the Baron having taken them and paid Legacies is chargeable by reason thereof as Executor de son tort demesne and so those Goods quacunque via data are lyable to this debt in whosesoever hands they come unless by Title Paramount or by Sale bonâ fide wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Scire facias against S. as Executor of F. V. upon a Judgement given against the Testator of Two hundred pound he pleaded payment of Forty pound debt due to the Queen and besides that he had riens in ses mains And thereupon they were at Issue whether he had Assets And it was found by special Verdict That the Testator was possess'd of divers Goods to the value of Two hundred fifty pound and by covin to defraud his Creditors made a Gift of his Goods to his Daughter with a condition of payment of twenty shillings that it should be void and died The Defendant intermedled with the Goods and afterwards the Daughter by this Gift took the Goods and after that Administration of the Goods of F. V. was committed to the Defendant and whether upon this matter he shall be charged as Executor and that those Goods should be Assets in his hands was the question And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff For first when he medled with the Intestates Goods although he were neither Executor nor Administrator and afterwards Administration was committed unto him a Creditor hath election to charge him as Executor or Administrator especially here when he pleads as Executor the finding by the Jury that he is Administrator is not to purpose 9 Ed. 4. 53. 2 R. 3. 20. 21 H. 6. 8. Secondly all the Court held That this Gift of the Goods is in it self fraudulent as appears by the Condition and the Covin is expresly found by the Jury and then it is utterly void against the Creditors by the Stat. of 13 Eliz. and the Intestate died possessed of them and when afterwards the Donee took them it was a Trespass against the Administrator for which he hath his remedy and they are alwayes Assets in his hands But if a Trespasser takes Goods from a Testator in his life-time so as they never were but a chose in Action to the Executor or Administrator they be not Assets until they be recovered Wherefore notwithstanding the taking of them by the Donee yet they alway remained as Assets in the hands of the Administrator and therefore he is chargeable for them as Executor de son tort by his intermedling with them before Administration committed and the Goods by Law remained alwayes in his possession Wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXV Additionals to the three last precedent Chapters touching how far and wherein Executors may be charged 1. Executors not chargeable upon a simple Contract of the Testators 2. Actions of Account lye not against the Executors of the Accountant 3. Personal Actions lye not against Executors as Executors 4. Executors lyable for no more than comes to their hands 5. The Husband not lyable for his Wifes debts after her decease 6. In what Case the Ordinary may be sued for the deceaseds debts 7. How an Executor may make himself chargeable de bonis propriis 8. The method of proceedings where Execution is de bonis propriis 9. Executors obliged though not mentioned in the Obligations 10. Contracts dissolved by Obligations after made 1. VVHerever the Testator might wage his Law there the Action lyeth not against the Executor therefore he is not chargeable upon an Action of Debt upon a simple Contract yea though such a debt grew for the most necessary things as Meat and Drink which bindeth even an Infant to payment yet will it not charge the Executor of a man of full Age so that though a common Host or Victualler trust his Guest he loseth his debt by his death Understand these things of Contracts only by word for where the Testator in his life-time did put his Seal to any Deed or Writing made upon any such thing this being then more than a simple Contract taketh from the Vendee his wager of Law and thereby chargeth his Executor But if the Testator Seal only unto a Tally or the like with Scotches expressing a debt this is no such specialty as shall charge his Executors And although no Action of debt lyeth against the Executor as aforesaid upon a simple Contract yet may the Creditor in that Case maintain an Action upon the Case grounded upon the Assumption implyed though not express'd And thus indeed the Executor is charged in substance or matter for a simple Contract though not in manner for a debt but as for breach of promise making recompence in dammages instead of the debt 2. No Action of Account lyeth against Executors except for the King that is against the Executors of the Accountant Nor indeed at the Common Law for the Executors of him to whom the Account is to be made but that is help'd by Statute For Executors could not have an Action of Account at the Common Law in respect of the privity of the Account but the Stat. W. 2. cap. 23. hath given an Action of Account to Executors the Stat. of 25 Ed. 3. cap. 5. to Executors of Executors and the Stat. of 31 Ed. 3. cap. 11. to Administrators And as an Executor is not chargeable in an Action of Account as aforesaid so neither is he 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 or custody 3. Although Executors are in Law understood as the Representees of their Testators persons yet if the Testator in his life-time commit any Trespass either upon the Person Lands or Goods of another no Action lyeth against his Executor for the same the reason is Actio personalis moritur cum persona as hath been formerly declared Hence it is that there is no remedy in Law to compel Executors though they have Assets to make satisfaction of a Trespass done by the Testator in his life-time for every Trespass dyeth with the person And therefore also it
to be paid 9. Touching Debts due for Rent upon Leases what the Law in that Case is 10. Debts for Servants wages payable before Legacies 11. Covin in an Executors payments shall not prejudice a Creditor 12. Mortuary what it is when where how much and in what Cases payable 13. Law-Cases relating to this Subject 1. ALl the Debts must be paid before any Legacies be paid or delivered and if there be not enough over and above the Legacies to pay all the debts then and in that Case any thing given by way of Legacy may be sold for payment of the Debts and in such Case the Legataries must be content to lose their Legacies 2. In the first place the Executor or the Administrator if he be a Creditor to the deceased shall be preferred before others so that he may deduct to satisfie himself first although other Creditors lose their whole debt thereby specially if his debt be in equal degree with the other debts so that an Executor may allow his own debt in prejudice of other like Creditors if he hath made an Inventory and in case he be not Executor of his own wrong Understand this especially when the debts are of equal degree for if the Testator be indebted to other men by Statute Judgement or Recognizance and to the Executor only by Bond or Specialty then may he not first pay himself unless there be Goods sufficient to pay both him and them But by the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws the Executor is in the same case with other like Creditors 3. If there be any debt due to the Crown and the King Commence his Sute for it before any other man can get a Judgement for his debt he shall be satisfied before any others neither is it in the Election of the Executor to prefer any other debt due to any Subject So that if the Executor be Sued by any Subject for any such debt he may plead in Bar of the Sute That his Testator died thus much in debt to the King shewing how c. and that he hath not Goods surmounting the value of that debt And if the Sute be not so by way of Action as that the Executor hath a day in Court to plead but be by way of suing Execution as upon Stat. Merchant or Staple then is the Executor put to his Audita Querela wherein he must set forth this matter But this priority of payment of the Kings debt before any other is to be understood of such of the Kings debts only as are of Record and not of summs of money due to the King upon Wood-sales or Sales of his Minerals for which no Specialty is given or of Amercements in his Courts Baron or Courts of his Honours which be not Courts of Record or of Fines for Copy-hold Estates there or of mony upon the Sale of Strayes within the Kings Manors or Liberties or of forfeitures to the Crown of debts by Contract due to any Subject by Out-lawry or Attainder until Office thereupon found But of Fines and Amercements in the Kings Courts of Record there is no question but they are debts of Record 4. When the King is satisfied then must the debts of the Subject be paid if there be Goods of the deceased sufficient remaining and that in this order or method First before other personal debts whether they be due by Obligation Bill or otherwise Judgements and Condemnations are to be discharged that is the debts due by Record by any Judgement had against the deceased in any Judicial proceeding in any Court of Record Nor is it any Plea for a Creditor by Statute to say that his Statute was acknowledged before the Judgement and so is more ancient for a Judgement though latter yet being more puisne is to be preferred before a Statute in time precedent But if this Judgement be satisfied and is only kept on foot to wrong other Creditors or if there be any Defeazance of the Judgement yet in force then the Judgement will not avail to keep off other Creditors from their debts And here Note that between one Judgement and another had against the Testator precedency or priority of time is not material but he that first sueth Execution shall be preferred and before any Execution sued it is at the Election of the Executor to satisfie which Judgement he will first And here observe farther that this is to be understood of Judgements only against the Testator and not of any against the Executor himself also that what is said of a Testator in Case of an Executor immediate is to be understood likewise of the Testators Testator in Case of the Executor of an Executor Again the foresaid respect to debt by Judgement is not to be restrained or limited only to the Four Courts at Westminster but extends it self to Judgement in all other Courts of Record as in Cities and Towns Corporate having Power by Charter or Prescription to hold Plea of Debt above Forty shillings for though Execution cannot be there had of any other Goods than such as are within the Jurisdiction of that Court yet if the Record be removed into Chancery by a Certiorari and thence by Mittimus into one of the Benches then Execution may be had upon any Goods in any County of England Again Debts upon Specialties must be paid before debts upon Contract and debts upon Record must be paid before debts upon Specialties also a Judgement in a Court of Record shall be paid before Statutes which are but private Records as also before Recognizances acknowledged by Assent of the parties Likewise a debt upon or after a Recovery though it be a latter debt shall be paid before a precedent debt due by Recognizance or Statute because although they are both Records yet the Judgement in the Kings Court upon Judicial proceeding is the most notorious and more eminent in degree than a Statute or Recognizance taken in private by consent of the parties and therefore shall be preferred before it 5. In the next place Debts due by Statutes or Recognizances entered into by the deceased are to be satisfied for the debt due upon Statute Merchant and Recognizance is to be discharged if there be Assets before any Personal Debt For that by vertue of the Recognizance not only the person of the Debtor is obliged but also after the expiration of the day of payment the moveable Goods of the Debtor may be apprehended and sold for satisfaction of the debt Here Note that a Statute and Recognizance standing in equal degree it is at the Executors Election to give precedency to which he will neither is it material which of them was first or last nor between one Statute and another doth the time or antiquity give any advantage as touching the Goods though touching the Lands of the Conusor it doth but as for his Goods in the hands of the Executor who first seizeth them by
be in the Debet and Detinet because he is bound by special words in the Obligation and here the debt which in the time of the Administratrix occurr'd is her debt and in Dyer 6 Ed. 6. 81. the Action is brought in the Debet and Detinet for Rent Arrear in the time of the Executor and admitted to be good Popham accord For the being charged with the Rent in her time it accrews by reason of the Profits of the Land which she her self received and therefore she is charged having quid pro quo For if an Executor hath a Lease for years of Land of the value of Twenty pound per Ann. rendring Ten pound per Ann. Rent it is Assets in his hands only for Ten pound over and above the Rent Fenner agreed to this Opinion and to that purpose cited 10 H. 6. 11. That the Husband shall be charged after the death of the Feme for Rent Arrear in his own time because he received the Profits of the Land So as the Rent grew due in respect of the occupation and taking of the Profits And therefore she is chargeable and not meerly as Executrix Clinch agreed with them wherefore it was then adjudged for the Plaintiff Note That afterwards this Judgement was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber for the point in Law For all the Judges of the Common Bench and Barons of the Exchequer held That she ought to be charged in the Detinet because she is charged only by the Contract of the Intestate 5 Co. 31. The Case was One died Intestate in the County of York and a Stranger prayed Letters of Administration to be granted to him which was Repealed by the Delegates at York there was an Appeal to the Court of Delegates in the Chancery who did Repeal the former Sentence at York and adjudged that the Party made no Will and granted Letters of Administration to him who Appealed to them The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury granted Administration to a second person and the Arch-Bishop of York to a Third person who made a Release unto the Debtor of the Intestate upon which Release debt was brought by the first Administrator against the Defendant who pleaded the Release made to him And whether this grant of Letters of Administration by the Judges Delegates were good or not was the Question But the better Opinion of the Court was That the Letters of Administration which were granted by the Judges Delegates was not good but there being Bona Notabilia the Administration was to be granted by the Arch-Bishop And it was said That if the Party who died Intestate had Goods in several Provinces both the Arch-Bishops there having a Peculiar might grant Letters of Administration and although the King be Supream Ordinary and by Delegates may do many Acts yet the Court of Delegates cannot do this nor have they power to Prove any Wills for the power of the Judges Delegates is Potestas Delegata corrigere non exequi And the Court said That it was adjudged in one Brakenburies Case That the Judges Delegates had not power to grant any Letters of Administration An Exception was taken to a Declaration because the Plaintiff conveyed his Interest to an Administrator to whom the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury did grant the Administration of all the Goods of the Lessee and did not shew how the Arch-Bishop granted it either as Ordinary or by his Prerogative And this was held by all the Court a material Exception But it was afterwards alledged That all the Presidents in this Court viz. B. R. and in C. B. were so in general without special shewing how and for that they would not change the Presidents they disallowed the Exception And in this Case it was held That if an Administrator doth grant Omnia bona catalla sua a Term which he hath as Administrator doth not pass for it is not suum but he hath it in right of the Intestate But if one hath a Lease as Executor or Administrator of the Mannor of D. and he granteth all his right and interest in the Mannor the Term which he hath as Executor c. doth pass for he had no other Right in it and his intent is to pass it but by general words it shall not pass Debt against the Defendant as Administratrix she pleaded Plenè Administravit the Jury found That the Intestate was indebted to divers by Obligations and that after his death the Defendant had taken in the Obligations and had obliged her self to pay the greater part of the summs contained in the Obligations at certain dayes to come and for the residue had promised to the parties That in consideration of delivery in of the said Obligations that she would pay c. And by the Opinion of Anderson Windham and Periam it was held clearly a good Administration so that the property of the Goods of the Intestate to that value were altered and changed in the Defendant Action Sur Trover And Declares as Administrator of J. S. and that Administration was committed to him by A. B. Official to the Bishop of Peterborrough and sheweth not that he was Ordinary of the Place or that the granting of Administration did belong to him and this matter after Verdict was alledged in Arrest of Judgement but because divers Presidents had been so and that such Declarations had been allowed the Court did give Judgement for the Plaintiff Debt as Administrator to one Philips and Declares That Administration of the Goods of Philips was committed to him per Adrian Vane Sacrae Theologiae Doctorem such a day apud Monmouth and the Plaintiff recovered in the Common Bench by default and Writ of Errour was thereon brought and the Errour Assign'd because it is not shewn that Vane was Ordinary of Monmouth nor that the committing of Administration appertained to him and in regard it was in a Declaration which ought to be certain and he is not a Bishop nor any person who may be intended to be the Ordinary the Judgement was therefore reversed It was moved by Coke the Queens Atturney That the committing of Administration being by the Arch-Bishop although he had not Goods in divers Diocesses because it is in his Province wherein he hath Jurisdiction it is not void but only voidable by Sentence and it is not like to an Administration committed by another Bishop of the Goods of a man who died in another Diocess or who had Goods in divers Diocesses and this difference hath been taken and agreed in the Queens Bench c. But the Justices said it was all one and the Administration is void in both cases and not voidable only Debt upon an Obligation of One hundred pound one of the Defendants was Out-lawed the other pleaded that he who was Out-lawed was made Executor and solely Proved the Will and Administred and that the Defendant as Servant unto him took divers of the Testators Goods by his Delivery and by his appointment had sold them
Son to his Mother 10. A man bequeaths the House wherein he lives to A. B. his Wife quamdiu she shall continue a Widdow and dyes A. B. doth not Re-marry but lives and dyes a Widdow In this case the said House by the Civil Law comes to A. B. and his Heirs for ever Note that what in the premises hath been said touching the invallidity of Conditions against Marriage annexed to Legacies in relation to Females holds the same in Law touching the like illegal Conditions in reference to Males or Masculines 11. A man Devised to his Daughter 500 l. towards her Marriage In this Case it was the Opinion of the Court That if she die before Marriage her Executors shall have it But if the words were To be paid at the day of her Marriage or at the age of 21 years and she dyeth before both it is otherwise The latter part of which Judgment seems not to agree with the Civil Law in that point which sayes the time of the age of a Legatary may be joyned either to the substance of the Legacy or to the execution and performance of the same if the time of the age of the Legatary be joyned to the substance of the Legacy as when the Testator doth give thee 100 l. when thou shalt be of the age of 21 years In this case if thou dyest before that time thy Executors cannot recover the 100 l. But if the time of the age of the Legatary be joyned only to the execution or performance of the Legacy as when the Testator doth give thee 100 l. which he willeth shall be paid when thou accomplish the age of 21 years In this case although thou dye before thou accomplish the age of 21 years yet thy Executors or Administrators shall recover the same when the time is accomplished wherein thy self if thou hadst been then living mightst have recovered the same 12. Consonant whereunto is that which we find Reported viz. That it was agreed by the Court That if a man Deviseth to his Daughter 100 l. when she shall be Married or to his Son when he shall be of full age and they dye before the time appointed and make Executors their Executors shall not have it But it is otherwise if the Devise were to them to be paid at their full ages and they dye before that time and make Executors there the Executors shall have it Which difference was since likewise so Agreed and Adjudged 13. A Feme Sole Deviseth Lands to A. B. in Fee to whom afterwards she was Married and during the Coverture Countermands her Will saying her Husband should not have the Land nor any other benefit by her Will and dyes In this case the Husband shall not have the Land not only because of her Countermand but because of the disability of a Feme Covert to make a Will which takes no effect till the parties death And therefore if a Feme sole Deviseth Lands to a man and then takes him to Husband and dyes This Inter-marriage is a reversion of the Devise and the Heir of the Woman shall have the Lands and not the Husband because after Marriage the Will of the Wife in Judgment of Law is subject to the Will of her Husband and a Feme Covert hath not any Will for the making of the Will is but the Inception thereof and takes no effect till the death of the Devisor 14. If a man Deviseth Lands generally to his Wife for the Term of her life It cannot be averred to be for the Joynture of the Wife and in satisfaction of her Dower But if a man Deviseth Lands to his Wife for life or in tail for her Joynture and in satisfaction of her Dower the same is a good Joynture within the Stat. of 27 H. 8. 15. A man Devised the Moiety of his Goods to his Wife and dyed It was the opinion of the Court That she should have the Moiety of them as they were at the time of his death if his Executors had Assets sufficient to pay his Debts If a Legacy be given to a Woman Covert and her Husband give a Release and afterwards he and his Wife sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Legacy the party sued shall not have a Prohibition upon the Husbands Release because the Temporal Judges cannot meddle with a Legacy nor consequently determine whether the Release will extinguish the same As the Case 29 Eliz. Adjudged The Husband may Devise to his Wife although they are but one person in Law for it takes no effect till after his Death CHAP. XVIII Of Legacies and Devices to a Child in the Womb. 1. A Devise to an Infant in the Womb is good 2. It may be good though the Infant be rip'd alive out of the Womb. 3. It is good though it be a Devise in Remainder or in Tail 4. How the Divident of a Devise shall be in case of Twins unexpected or an Hermophrodite 5. How the Legacy shall be apportioned when bequeathed to any Child in the Womb and more then One or Two happen to be Born 6. Where a Devise void or voidable in his Inception may become good by matter ex post facto 1. THat a Child in the Womb to whom a Legacy is bequeathed or Lands Divised is after his or her Birth though subsequent to the Testators death capable of taking by such Devise is a Truth now not to be controverted though it hath been Contradicted and otherwise Resolved for we find it Reported in a Case thus stated viz. A Man had Issue Five Sons his Wife being with Child with the Sixth at the time of his death and by his last Will declared That the Third Part of his Land should descend and come to his Son and Heir the other Two Parts he bequeathed to his Four Younger Sons by Name and to the Heirs Males of their Bodies and if the Infant in the Mothers Womb be a Son then he to have a Fifth Part as Co-heir with his Four Elder Brothers The Sixth Son was Born after the death of his Father in this Case it was Resolved That the Son Born after the death of the Father should not have any thing because he was uncapable as a Purchasor when the Devise was first to take effect because he was not then in esse or rerum natura Notwithstanding which it was not long after in another Case otherwise understood in which Case it was Admitted That a Devise to an Infant in his Mothers Belly was good It is presumed the intendment is of such an Infant as was born after the Testators death In other Cases also it hath been held That Devise to an Infant in his Mothers Belly is good 2. A Man Deviseth his Land to his Wife being with Child the Remainder to the Issue en ventre safeme his Wife in Travail dyeth and the Son is rip'd from his Mother alive he shall have the said Remainder