clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 813   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

4 & 5 W. & M. CAP. 24, DEVASTAVIT. gig
sum so ascertained shall be levied of the goods of the deceased or of the
proper goods of the defendant, and the residue of the debt or damages
shall be levied of the goods of the deceased which may thereafter come
to the hands of the defendant to be administered, with interest, or of the
proper goods of the defendant; and by sec, 23,*7 if such goods shall there-
after come to the hands of the defendant as administrator, or into the
hands of any other person who may have authority to administer the
goods of the deceased, the plaintiff may issue a scire facias on the judg-
ment, suggesting the coining of such assets to the hands of the adminis-
trator, liable to the payment of his debt, upon which if the defendant
contests the same there shall be a trial by jury as provided in sec. 20.
(See Seighman v. Marshall supra.)
In Meyrick v. Anderson, 19 L. J. Q. B. 231, it was decided that if one
be sued as executor of an executor for a debt of the testator, it is no
answer that he is only executor de son tort to the original rightful execu-
tor. The plaintiff, said the Court, ought not, if there be assets of the
testator independent or in consequence of the devastavit of the first
executor, to be deprived of any remedy against them, because no one
takes out administration de bonis non to the testator, nor ought he to be
driven to take out such administration himself, when another professing
to be executor of the first executor has possessed himself of those assets.
In Hammond v. Gatliffe, Andr. 252, there was an executor de son tort
of an executor de son tort, and the Court inclined to think that the second
wrongful executor was not liable at common law or under the Statute of
Charles, as an executor de son tort is not named in the first part of the
Act.48 But Patteson J. in Meyrick v. Anderson supra, thought the decision
questionable.
47 Code 1911, Art. 26, sec. 29.
48 See Wilson v. Hodson, L. R. 7 Ex. 84.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

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 813   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

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.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives