Assumpsit against executors for money

J. Baker
{"title":"Assumpsit against executors for money","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The decision in Slade’s Case (1602) that the action of assumpsit could be brought for not paying a debt left open the question whether it would lie against a debtor’s executors. Executors had been immune from actions by writ of debt, unless there was a sealed acknowledgment of indebtedness, since they could not wage their testator’s law; but wager of law was not relevant in assumpsit. This chapter shows how the availability of assumpsit against executors, to recover debts from a deceased debtor’s estate, was a controversial question between the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, and how it was finally settled in 1611 in favour of allowing the action.","PeriodicalId":197105,"journal":{"name":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baker and Milsom Sources of English Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847809.003.0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The decision in Slade’s Case (1602) that the action of assumpsit could be brought for not paying a debt left open the question whether it would lie against a debtor’s executors. Executors had been immune from actions by writ of debt, unless there was a sealed acknowledgment of indebtedness, since they could not wage their testator’s law; but wager of law was not relevant in assumpsit. This chapter shows how the availability of assumpsit against executors, to recover debts from a deceased debtor’s estate, was a controversial question between the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, and how it was finally settled in 1611 in favour of allowing the action.
向遗嘱执行人索赔
在斯莱德案(1602)中,假设诉讼可以因不偿还债务而提起,这一决定留下了一个问题,即假设诉讼是否会不利于债务人的遗嘱执行人。遗嘱执行人不受债务令状的诉讼,除非有一份盖印的债务承认书,因为他们不能执行遗嘱执行人的法律;但法律赌注与假设无关。本章展示了如何利用对遗嘱执行人的假设,从已故债务人的遗产中收回债务,这是国王法庭和普通上诉之间一个有争议的问题,以及它是如何在1611年最终解决的,有利于允许这一行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信