Mathew Cowell and Jane his wife, Administratrix of Bowes, against Watts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1805 |
| Date | 20 May 1805 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 1342
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Discussed, Heath v. Chilton, 1844, 12 M. & W. 637.
mathew cowell and jane his wife, Administratrix of Bowes, against watts. Monday, May 20th, 1805. A count upon a promise to the plaintiff as administratrix for goods sold and delivered by her after the death of the intestate may be joined with a count upon an account stated with her as administratrix; for the damages and costs when recovered would be assets. [Discussed, Heath v. CWton, 1844, 12 M. & W. 637.] The plaintiffs declared in the first count of the declaration in right of Jane, (the wife) as administratrix of T. Bowes, who died intestate: for that whereas [406] the defendant after the death of the intestate, to wit, on 1st of May 1803, at Westminster, fec. was indebted to the plaintiffs in right of the said Jane as administratrix as aforesaid in 501. for a moiety of ^divers goods by the said Mathew and Jane, as administratrix as aforesaid, before that time sold and delivered to the. defendant at Ms request; and being so indebted, the defendant, in consideration- thereof, afterwards, &e. promised to the said Mathew and Jane, as administratrix as aforesaid, to pay them, &c. There was a second similar count on a quantum valebant. And the plaintiffs declared in a third count, that whereas also the defendant afterwards and after the death of the intestate, to wit, on the same day and year,&c. accounted with the said Mathew and Jane, as such administratrix as aforesaid, of and concerning divers sums before that time due and owing from the defendant to the said Mathew and Jane, as such administratrix as aforesaid, and being then in arrear, and upon that account the defendant'was then and there found in arrear and indebted to. the said Mathew and Jane, as such administratrix as aforesaid, in the further sum of ,501. &c., the defendant in consideration thereof on, &c. promised the said Mathew and Jane, as such administratrix as aforesaid, to pay them, &c.; yet the defendant hath not -paid, &c. After verdict for the plaintiffs it was moved to arrest the judgment upon the ground of a misjoinder of counts, the first and second being for goods sold and delivered by the administratrix after the death of the intestate, where she must sue in her own right, however accountable afterwards for the application of the assets: and the 3d count being upon an account stated with the wife as administratrix, which could only be for debts contracted with the intestate. (a) 3 Term Eep. 275. Ç EAST, 407. COWJ5LL V. WATTS 1343 [407] Garrow and Marryat shewed cause against the rule. Supposing that the two first counts must necessarily be considered as laid in the wife's own right, yet if any case can be put of an account stated with the administratrix for money paid by her in her own time as administratrix for the benefit of the defendant, it will be sufficient to sustain the judgment; and the case put in Ord v. Fenwick...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...joined with another count on promises made to the testator. And so is the case of Foxwist v. Tremaine, post, 207. And in Cowell v. JVatts, 6 East, 405, the Court held that a count, upon a promise to the plaintiff as administratrix, for goods sold and delivered by her after the death of the ......
-
John Kean and Jane His Wife, Administratrix of William Craig, v James Strong and Others, Executors of John Maxwell
...1 Ld. Raym. 284. Smith v. SharpeENR 1 Salk. 139. Rubery v. JervoisENR 1 T. R. 229. Norris v. Elsworth Freem. 462. Cowell v. WattsENR 6 East, 405. Henshall v. RobertsENR 5 East, 150. Gye v. Ellis Stra. 228. Cocks v. Nash 2 M. & Se. 434. 540 CASES AT LAW. T. T. 1843. Queen'sBench. :April 28. ......
-
Gorman, Executor, v Fitzgerald
...3 East, 104. Lansfield v. Allen 1 Bl. N. S. 592. Webb v. CowdellENR 14 M. & W. 820. Corner v. ShewENR 4 M. & W. 163. Cowell v. WattsENR 6 East, 405. Clarke v. Webb 4 Tyr. 673. Heath v. ChiltonENR 12 M. & W. 637. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 359 E. T. 1851. Exchequer. GORMAN, Executor, .v. FITZGERALD......
-
Partridge and Wife, Administratrix, Company v Court. Demurrer
...promises to a testator, arthovjgh the account stated was alleged to be with the executor, Coioell & Ux,. Administmtrix,' &c., v. Watts (6 East, 405), Thompson & Ux. Executrix, &c.., v. Stent (1 Taunt. 322),-Powtey and Others, Executors of Powlty v. Newton (6 Taunt. 453); and in Ellis \. Bow......