Thompson v Reynolds and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 1827 |
| Date | 04 October 1827 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 352
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Meyappa Chetty v Supramanian Chetty, [1916] 1 A C 603
I !^D I-1' Oct. 4th, 1827 thompson v reynolds and another. (A plaintiff sued as executor, and in his declaration made profert of the letters testamentary in the usual form, which states " whereby it appears to the Court here that the plaintiff is executor/' &c. The defendant did not demand oyer, but pleaded that the plaintiff never was nor is executor " in manner and form " as alleged in the declaration The plaintiff replied that he was, and continued to be executor in manner and form, &c Held, that the plaintiff might recover on this issue, although he had not taken probate till some months after the declaration ) [Eeferred to, Meyappa Chetty v Supramaman Chetty, [1916] I A C 603 ] Replevin-The declaration commenced as follows : James Reynolds, and Henry Holland Dumll, the defendants in this suit, were summoned to answer Joshua Thompson, the plaintiff in this suit, and executor of the last will and testament of John Fisher, deceased, of a plea-Wherefore &c &c. Profert was made in the usual manner, viz.-And the said plaintiff brings into Court here the letters testamentary of the said John Fisher deceased, whereby it appears to the Court here, that the said plaintiff is executor [124] of the last will and testament of the said John Fisher, and hath execution thereof, &c. There were several avownes. and a plea in the following form, viz " that the plaintiff, suing as executor as aforesaid, ought not to have or maintain his aforesaid action against the defendants, because they say that the plaintiff never was nor is the executor of the last will and testament of the said John Fisher deceased, in manner and form as the said plaintiff hath above, in his said declaration, in that behalf alleged." To this plea the plaintiff replied, that he " by reason of anything by the defendants in that plea alleged, ought not to be barred from having and maintaining his aforesaid action against them, because he saith, that he at the time of the commencement of this suit was, and from thence hitherto hath been, and still is, executor of the last will and testament of the said John Fisher deceased, in manner and form as he the said plaintiff hath above, in his said declaration, in that behalf alleged." The declaration was of Hilary Term, and it appeared, that the plaintiff had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.H. (A Ward of Court)
...before he gets his grant. The law on the point is well settled: see Comyn's Digest, ‘Administration’, B. 9 & 10, Thompson v Reynolds 3 C. & P. 123: Woolley v Clark 5 B. & Ald. 744.” The executrix, Ann Crowe, never assented to the appeal proceeding 56 . A copy of a letter dated the 24 Decemb......
-
Vidhya Nativivat And Others v Vitoon Nativivat
...that the principle that the title of an executor stemmed from the will as opposed to the grant is of great antiquity. Thompson v Reynolds 3 C & P 123 was a decision in 1827 and some earlier authorities for the principle were cited at p.126: Wankford v Wankford 1 Salk 299 and Duncomb v Walte......
-
Webb, Executor of Eleanor Warr, Deceased, v Adkins
...the time of declaring, may clothe himself with a perfect right by obtaining probate five minutes before the trial: Thompson v. Reynolds, 3 C. & P. 123. [Maule, J. There certainly ought to be some remedy in such a case as this. The better course probably will be, to call upon the plaintiff t......