Barry against Rush
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1324
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
1324 BARRY V. RUSH 1 T. R. 891. [691] barry agaimt hush. Wednesday, May 2d, 1787. Where the defendant bound himself as administrator to abide by an award to be made touching matters in dispute between his intestate and another, and the arbitrators awarded that he aa administrator should pay, &c. he cannot plead plene administravit to debt on the bond. Debt on bond. The plea first craved oyer of the bond (by which the defendant, aa administrator, bound himself, his heirs, &c. to the plaintiff as executrix); and then of the condition, which (after reciting that the plaintiff and the defendant had agreed to submit to arbitration certain disputes which had before arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant's intestate, touching certain articles of agreement between the intestate and the plaintiffs testator) was for the performance of an award to be made by arbitrators concerning the matters aforesaid, and also concerning all others matters, accounts, &c. between the said parties or either of them. It then set forth that the arbitrators had awarded that the defendant, as administrator, should pay to the plaintiff, as executrix, 2981. on 27th June following, and that the parties should execute general releases. The defendant then pleaded that he had fully administered ; and that at the time of entering into the bond, or afterwards, he had no assets, &c. To this plea there was a general demurrer, and joinder. Morgan was to have argued in support of the demurrer: but the Court desired the defendant's counsel to begin. Gibbs contended that the defendant was not bound by the terms of the award to pay the money awarded absolutely, but only as administrator, out of the assets of the intestate. This appears clearly from the words of the bond; for he is there only bound as administrator, and of course is only liable to pay this debt, if the law would subject him to the payment of any other debt, in the capacity of administrator. But if there be any ambiguity in the words themselves, the Court will look to the subject-matter of the arbitration. Now the only matter referred was the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant's intestate; and the general words which follow, namely, " All other matters, &c. between the parties," must relate to the same parties in the same capacities before described. This is the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rock v Leighton, Vic. Salop
...only liable to the amount of the assets in his hands. Vide Dearne v. Crimp, 2 Bl. Rep. 1275. Waters v. Ogden, Doug. 452. Barry v. Rush, 1 T. R. 691. Pearson v. Henry, 5 T. E. 6. In Higherdale v. Cowper, in tbe Court of Arches, 10th May 1793, an incumbent instituted a suit against the execut......
-
Riddell v Sutton, Executrix of Sutton
...ill. First, the plea of plene administravit; because the mere general submission to arbitration was an admission of assets; Barry v. Rush (1 T. R. 691). In thab caae, the defendant bound himaelf, as adminiatrator, to abide by an award to be made touching all matters in dispute between his i......