| Volume 194, Page 578 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
578 43 ELIZ. CAP. 8, EXECUTOR DE SON TORT. If an executor de son tort sell goods 7 to A., to whom letters of adminis- tration are afterwards granted, the latter may then recover against the former for their conversion, Glenn v. Smith, 2 G. & J. 493; such a case not being within the principle of Whitehall v. Squire, Carth. 104, where the plaintiff, having received a horse belonging to the intestate from the defendant in remuneration of services performed at the defendant's request about the funeral, afterwards administered, and brought trover against the defendant for the value of the horse so received by him before he became administrator, for there the plaintiff was particeps criminis. There are acts of intermeddling,8 such as locking up the goods of a deceased person for safe keeping, which will not charge a man as executor of his own wrong, but the taking the goods of an intestate by a stranger and using or selling them, and, in general, any intermeddling with them, will, as respects creditors, make him an executor de son tort, and charge- able with the debts of the deceased so far as assets come into his hands. But as against creditors he is justified in paying the debts of the deceased, and if sued by a creditor he may plead plene administravit, and will be allowed all payments made of just debts to any other creditors in equal or superior degree, or in due course of administration, though he cannot in any case (see infra) retain any part of the goods of the deceased in satis- faction of a debt due to himself. There is, however, a difference between a suit by a creditor against an executor de son tort, and one by a rightful executor or administrator. If the action by the latter be trover for the goods of the deceased, the defendant cannot plead payment of debts to the value, or that he has given the goods in satisfaction of the debts. But on was held that he should be treated as an executor de son tort and required to account as such. The executor of an executor de son tort is not liable for a breach of con- tract committed by the person with whose property the executor de son tort has intermeddled. Wilson v. Hodson, L. R. 7 Ex. 84. T In this state title to personal property of a decedent can be trans- mitted only through the instrumentality of letters of administration, "except in certain exceptional cases by an executor de son tort." Bie- muller v. Schneider, 62 Md. 558; Rockwell v. Young, 60 Md. 563; Schaub v Griffin, 84 Md. 567. But an executor de son tort cannot deal with or dis- pose of the estate of a decedent in a mode expressly forbidden to a law- fully appointed executor or administrator. He cannot therefore sell the chattels of a decedent and pass a good title to the purchaser as against i subsequently appointed lawful administrator, such purchaser not being i creditor of the estate and not taking the property in discharge of any deb due him by the decedent. Rockwell v. Young, 60 Md. 563. 8 In New York Breweries Co. v. Atty. Gen., (1899) A. C. 62; (1898 1 Q. B. 205, an English company was held liable as an executor de son tor in respect of probate duty on certain of its shares owned by the estate of decedent, who had been a foreign subject domiciled in America, and t whose executor the company had transferred the shares, when it knew1 that the executor had not obtained and did not intend to obtain probate i England. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 578 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives