Putnam v Bates
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1826 |
| Date | 18 February 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 547
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Coope v. Cresswell, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 119.
[188] putnam v. bates. Feb. 18, 1820. [See Coope v. Cresswell, 1866, L. R. 2 Eq. 119.] An admission of a debt by the executrix of a trader, within six years before the filing of a creditor's bill, will not take the debt out of the statute of limitations, so as to enable the creditor, under the 47 G. 3, c. 74, to claim payment out of the real estate in the hands of a devisee. The bill was filed by a simple contract creditor of a testator, who, at the time of his death, was a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws, for the administration of his assets, and the payment of his debts out of his real, as well as his personal, estate. The Defendants were Sarah Bates, the executrix and devisee of a moiety of the real estate of which the testator died seised, and Bishenden and his wife, who were the devisees of the other moiety. Bishenden and his wife did not admit the Plaintiff's demand ; and they insisted 548 PUTNAM V. BATES 3 RUSS. 189. that the debt, even if it ever had been duo, was not barred by the statute of limitations. Sarah Bates, the executrix, did not insist on the benefit of the statute. Proof was given of payment of part of the debt by the executrix within six years, but there was no evidence of any admission of the debt by Bichenden and his wife. The question was, Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to any decree against Bishenden and his wife, and against so much of the real estate as they were interested in. Mr. Barber, for the Plaintiff. The 47 G. 3, c. 74,(1) provides that the real estate, of [189] which a trader dies seised, " shall be assets to be administered in courts of equity for the payment of all his juat debts." This debt, being proved against the executrix, is a just debt now due from the testator ; arid, therefore, the Court is bound by the words of the act to apply the proceeds of the lands in the discharge of it. When once the demand is established against the primary fund, the heir or devisee cannot be heard to say, that, so far as regards the auxiliary fund, it shall be treated as a nonentity. The Master of the Rolls [Sir J. S. Copley]. The argument is, that the admission of the executrix has taken the case out of the statute of limitations; and it seems to be admitted, that, but for this admission, the statute would have applied. Now, how can the act of the executrix be evidence against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murad and Another v Al-Saraj and Another
...as part of the same transaction the fiduciary must account for it. I can give an example of that. In Giddings v Giddings (1826) 3 Russ 241, 38ER 547, a tenant for life renewed a lease belonging to the trust. The renewed lease, however, included land which had not been within the original le......
-
Ellard v Cooper
...Ves. 209. Vickers v. OliverENR 1 Y. & C., C. C. 211. Busby v. SeymourENRUNK 1 Jo. & Lat. 527; S. C. 7 Ir, Eq, Rep. 433. Putman v. BatesENR 3 Russ. 188. Lane v. HardwickeENR 9 Beav. 148. Harrison v. BoswellENR 10 Sim. 382. Pollexfen v. MooreENR 3 Atk. 272. Howel v. PriceENR 1 P. Wms. 294. Cl......
-
Holland v Clark
...This Court does not allow even a sole executor absolute power of charging the estate, as for instance, by admission : Putnam v. Bates (3 Russ. 188). [the vice-chancellor. Did this Court hold that the admission did not charge the personal estate 1 ] That was not the question. Admitting, howe......
-
Bolding v Lane
...to justice that one person should be bound by the admissions of another, except in cases of continuing joint contract; Putnam v. Bates (3 Russ. 188); Fordham v. Wallis (10 Hare, 217). In the last-mentioned case, executors, who were also trustees of real estate not devised subject to the pay......