Steel v Rorke Administratrix, &
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1798 |
| Date | 21 June 1798 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 920
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER AND IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Followed, In re Turner, 1864, 33 L. J. Ch. 233. Referred to, Van Gheluixe v. Nerinckx, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 193.
steel v. eobke Administratrix, &c. June 21st, 1798. [Followed, In re Turner, 1864, 33 L. J. Ch. 233. Referred to, Fan Gheluive v. Nerinckx, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 193.] An outstanding judgment against a testator or intestate, not docketted accurding to the directions of 4 & 5 W. & M. s. 20, cannot be pleaded by an executor or administrator to an action on simple contract. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered to the Defendant's intestate. Plea: Judg-menti and bonds outstanding. Replication : That the judgments were not at the time of suing out the [308] writ docketted arid entered according to the provisions of 4 & 5 W. & M. c. 20. Rejoinder: " Protesting that the said replication, and the matters therein contained, are not sufficient in law for the Plaintiff to have or maintain hia action thereof against the Defendant, nevertheless that the Defendant before and at the time she so pleaded her said plea as aforesaid, had notice of the records of the said several judgments so obtained as aforesaid, and each and every of them in the said replication mentioned, being in the said court of our said Lord the King, before the King himself, in manner and form as she the Defendant hath above in those respects in pleading alleged, and which still remain, and each and every of them remains in the said court of our said Lord the King, before the King himself, at Westminster aforesaid, in their and each of their full force and efl'ect, not reversed, annulled, set aside, or in any-wise paid off or satisfied." To this there was a general demurrer and joinder therein. Hey wood Serjt. in support of the demurrer. The case of Hickey v. Hayter, administratrix, 6 T. E, 348, which puts judgments not docketted on a footing with simple contract debts, is decisive in favour of the Plaintiff. The only argument which can be advanced iq support of this rejoinder is, that the object of the statute was to insure notice to executors and administrators of judgments in force against them ; if therefore that notice be obtained by any other means it will be sufficient. The words of the statute however are positive " that no judgment not docketted and entered ahall have any preference against heirs, executors, and administrators, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v Killikelly
...579. O'Brien v. ScottUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 63. Robinson v. TongeENR 3 P. Wms. 398. Hickey v. HayterENR 6 T. R. 384. Steele v. RorkeENR 1 Bos. & Pul. 307. Hall v. Tapper 3 B. & Adol. 655. Smith v. O'Reilly 1 Cr. & Dix, 161. Jeffreson v. MortonENR 2 Wms. Saund. 9, c note. Ashley v. PocockENR 3 ......
-
Revell v Revell
...O'Brien v. ScottUNK 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 73. Ex parte Boyle 3 De Gex, M'N. & G. 530. Hickey v. HayterENR 6 T. R. 386. Steele v. RorkeENR 1 Bos. & Pul. 307. Hall v. TapperENR 3 B. & Ad. 656. Landon v. FergusonENR 3 Russ. 349. Burke v. KillikellyUNK 1 Ir. Ch. Rep. 1. 436 CHANCERY REPORTS. The case......
-
Landon v Ferguson
...heirs, executors, or administrators 1 The cases of Hickey v. Hayter, Administratrix (6 T. R. 384), and Steele v. Rarke, Administrator (1 Bos. & Pul. 307), were cited. [350] The Master of the Rolls held clearly, that judgments not docketed had no preference. Mr. Horne and Mr. Ching, for the ......