{"title":"向遗嘱执行人索赔","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.