Orr v Newton
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1791 |
| Date | 07 July 1791 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 127
BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL
[274] ore versus newton. Before the Privy Council, July 7, 1791. Executor, who has not proved, not considered as acting, by assisting a co-executor who had proved in writing letters to collect debts. Nor by writing directly to a debtor of the testator, and requiring payment. In 1764 Peter Garewdied having made his will, under which Newton, the respondent, was one of five executors, and the appellant claimed as personal representative of the two residuary legatees. In 1766, Popharu one of the executors died. In 1774, Philips another executor died. In 1785, the appellant filed his bill for an account against Newton, the respondent and only surviving executor who had acted. Newton, by his answer, admitted that during Popham's life he had assisted him in writing letters to the co-executors in other islands, towards collecting the testator's assets, and it was proved that he had written, on behalf of himself and his co-executors, in Popham's lifetime, to a debtor at Demerara, requiring payment of a bond debt, but Newton insisted that this was no acting by him in Popham's lifetime. Newton also admitted that he had acted in Philips's lifetime, but alleged that he had left the testator's books in Philips's custody, and had not got possession of the deeds respecting one of the testator's mortgages (which was the principal charge against him) until after Philips's death, from which time he had been endeavouring to recover the debt without effect, and therefore was not liable to account to the appellant for the amount of it. The defendant was decreed to account, and the Master, by his report, not having charged Newton with the full amount of the mortgage money, the appellant excepted to the Master's report, and his exceptions were allowed, and Newton was decreed to be liable. Newton appealed from this decretal order. Solicitor-General and Thompson, for the appellant. Mansfield and Abbot for the respondent Orr, who insisted that Newton had acted ab initio by demanding [275] debts due to the testator even in Popham's lifetime. Y. B. 2 Edm. IV. s. 5, and was chargeable for default in not getting in the debts. Levy-son v. Copeland, 2 Bro. Cha. Hep. 156. After argument the case stood over for judgment. This day Lord Camden gave judgment on the appeal. We have taken time in this question, as the rule which affects the conduct of executors oitght to be most seriously considered, because they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...9 Sim. 115. Davis v. Spurling 1 Rus. & Myl. 64. In re Badenach 10 Jur. N. S. 521. Montgomery v. Johnson 11 Ir. Eq. R. 476. Orr v. NewtonENR 2 Cox, 274. Lefroy v. Flood 4 Ir. Ch. R. 1. Harrison v. GrahamENR 1 P. Wms. 240, note. Knight v. KnightENR 3 Beav. 148. Knight v. Boughton 11 Cl. & F. ......
-
Long and Feaver v Symes and Hannam
...or refuses, Godolphin on Wills, 102 Even after having been sworn, executors have often [774] been allowed to renounce In Oir \. Newton, 2 Cox, 274, the acts for which the executor was not held liable were much stronger Judgment-Sir John Nicholl [after stating the substance of the act on pet......
-
Lowry v Fulton
...joined in selling the trust stock, and of course all were liable. What was laid down by Lord Camden at the Privy Council in On v. Newton (2 Cox, 274) is very important. He held that Newton, who had not proved, but had, in some manner, acted, was, by the strictest rule, not chargeable except......