Joseph Pratt, Administrator of Ann Pratt, against Swaine
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 1049
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 Man. & Ry. 350; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 353.
joseph pratt, Administrator of Arm Pratt, against swaine. 1828. To a declaration in trover by an administrator, alleging the grant of letters of administration to the plaintiff and that the defendant knowing the goods to have been the property of the intestate in his lifetime, and of the plaintiff as administrator since his death, afterwards, and after the death of the intestate, to wit, on, &c., converted the same goods, a plea of not guilty of the premises within six years is bad upon special demurrer. [S. C. 2 Man. & Ey. 350; 6 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 353.] Declaration stated that Ann Pratt, in her lifetime, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., was lawfully possessed of divers goods and chattels (describing them) as of her own property, and being so possessed thereof, she afterwards, to wit, on, &c., at, &e., died so possessed, after whose death, to wit, on the 20th of October 1820, the said goods and chattels came to the possession of the defendant by finding, and afterwards and after the death of Ann Pratt, to wit, on the 4th of May 1822, administration of all and singular the goods and chattels of the said Ann Pratt was granted to the plaintiff; yet the defendant, well knowing the said goods and chattels to be the property of the said Ann Pratt in her lifetime, and at the time of her death, and to belong to the plaintiff as administrator as aforesaid after the death of Ann Pratt, but, contriving [286] to defraud and injure the plaintiff as administrator as aforesaid, had not delivered to him the said goods and chattels, although requested so to do, and the defendant afterwards and after the death of Ann Pratt, to wit, on the 1st of January 1823, converted and disposed of the same to his, the defendant's, own use. Plea, that the defendant was not guilty of the premises in the declaration mentioned, or of any or either of them, at any time within six years next before the exhibiting of the plaintiff's bill, in manner and form as the plaintiff had complained against him. Demurrer, assigning for cause that the plea was argumentative and uncertain, and did not 1050 B&YAN /Vi WHISKiER 8S.&C.WH. explicitly shew that the action was not edmmeneed in due time, according to the Statute of Limitations; for although the defendant might not have been guilty of the premises mentioned in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...it was held that the statute ran only from the grant of the letters. 5 B. & A. 204, Murray v. East India Company. [See also accord. 8 B. & C. 285, Pratt v. Swaine. 2 M. & R. 350, S. C. 1 Mylne & Cr. 118, Perry v. Jenkins. But in an action brought against an executor, it is no answer to a pl......
-
Mary Anne Quinn v Harriette Wilson
...& Jer. 501. Ayre v. Craven 2 A. & E. 2. Doyley v. RobertsENR 3 Bing. N. C. 835. Dyster v. BattyeENR 3 B. & Ald. 448. Pratt v. SwaineENR 8 B. & C. 285. Sullivan v. White 6 Ir. Law Rep. 42. Lumby v. Allday 1 Cr. & Jer. 301. Ayre v. Craven 4 Nev. & Man. 220. Brayne v. Cooper 5 Mee. & Wels. 249......
-
Jasper Rogers v Caroline Dejoncourt and Two Others
...49. Lyons v. Mulderry Hayes, 534. Woolley v. ClarkeENR 5 B. & Al. 745. Murray v. East India CompanyENR 5 B. & Al. 204. Pratt v. SwaineENR 8 B. & C. 285. Winterbourne v. MorganENR 11 East, 394. Dwyer v. Peacock 2 Fox & S. 34. Pitt v. ShewENR 4 B. & Ald. 208. Firth v. PurvisENR 5 T. R. 432. H......
-
M'Ardle v Glenny
...14 M. & W. 854. Richards v. Evans 10 Q. B. 476. Beckford v. BeckfordENR Hob. 245. Martin v. FullerENR Comb. 371. Pott v. SwayneENR 8 B. & C. 285. Ejectment Non-payment of rent by Administrator Letters of Administration granted after Action brought. 628 THE IRISH REPORTS. Exchequer. pleas to......