Padget and Another against Priest and Porter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1787 |
| Date | 15 November 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 53
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
padget and another against priest and porter. Thursday, Nov. 15th, 1787. If A. the servant of B. sell the goods of C. an intestate, as well after his death as before, though by the orders of C. and pay the money, arising therefrom into the hands of B., B. may bo sued as an executor de son tort (a)2. If a person having intermeddled in an intestate's affairs has money belonging to the intestate in his hands at the time when an action is brought against him as executor, for a debt due from the intestate, he is liable as an executor de son tort. What acts make a person liable as executor de son tort is a matter of law for the Judge to decide; it is for the jury to say whether the acts are sufficiently proved. Case for goods sold and delivered against the defendants as executors of W. Shore. They severally pleaded the general issue; that they were not executors ; and that they bad fully administered. At the trial of this cause before Buller, J. at the sittings at Westminster after last term, the plaintiffs proved the delivery of the goods in question to W. Shore, who was a publican. A few days previous to his death the intestate sent to Porter, his brewer, desiring him to send a man to take charge of the cellar, and to draw the beer, who sent Payne his servant. Payne sold beer as well after the intestate's death as before. The intestate likewise ordered Payne to sell some hogs, which he did after his death, and paid into Porter's hands the produce of them and of the beer which was sold after the death of Shore. On the 7th of December 1786, administration was granted to J. Shore, who afterwards brought actions against these defendants for money had and received. On the 3d of February last, Priest paid 81. and on the 10th of February Porter paid 411. into Court, in those actions. On the 31st January the defendants pleaded in this action, which had been commenced on 23d December preceding. Verdict for the plaintiffs. Palmer had obtained a rule on a former day to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, because there was no evidence to prove the defendants executors de sou tort; or at most only slight evidence of facts done by them, which ought to have been left to the jury to consider with what view they had acted ; and that at ail events there was no evidence to affect Priest. Buller, J. after reporting the above facts, now said, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larina Jacobs-Lamothe v Janet Hendricks, Rona Hendricks-Brown and Bernice Hendricks-Gomes
...sued the widow for recovery of the sold realty. The Court of Appeal held that the purchaser retained a good title. 38 Padget v Priest (1787) 2 TR 97 39 Brook's Wharf and Bull Wharf's Ltd. Goodman Bros 1937 1 K.B. 534 at pages 544 – 40 [2007] EWHC 2909 (Ch), [2007] ALL ER (D) 119 per. Hende......
-
Beulah Adeogun v Beulah Adeogun (Personal Representative of the Estate of Emily Pilgrim)
...with the deceased executor's realty and personality and refer to examples such as carrying on the deceased's business ( Paget v Priest (1787) 2 T.R. 97; Hooper v Summersett (1810) Wight 16), selling his goods (Read's Case (1604) 5 Co. Rep, 33b) and receiving payments of debts due to him ( S......
-
Thomson Administrator of Bosville, against Harding and Faber
...himself within some of the authorities which have been cited," namely, for the defendant. That is the present case. Padget v. Priest (2 T. R. 97) shews that the bank might have recovered the money from R, Smith, as executor: the acts done by R. Smith are not disputed ; and, from the case la......