HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1029 and id is 1 raw text is: recovered will be assets, the parties may not declare as executors. In some cases a man
must declare as executor, in others he may or may not, at his election. Whether he
will be liable to costs or not, is a question which hs often been agitated, but I never
heaid of an objection like this to the form of the action.
Buller, Justice.-Where the cause of action accrues in [36] the lifetime of the
testator, the executor must sue as such; where it accrues after his death, the executor
may sue as such, or not; and in these cases the Court will not excuse him from costs.
Where the sum recovered will be assets, I think he may always declare as executor.
It never was an objection that there were counts on promises to the testator, and counts
on promises to the executor, in the same declaration (f). The two smaller sums which
were given in evidence in answer to the set-off, were demandable by the plaintiffs as
executors.
Rule discharged.
THE KING v. TEMPEANcE GREEN, OTHERWISE SHREIBER, AND OTHEs. Wednesday,
28th Nov. 1781. The Court will grant a rule nisi for an information for a con-
spiracy in taking away from his father's house, a young man of fortune under
age, for the purpose of marrying him to one of the conspirators, though the
young man is not beir-apparent to his father.
Morgan moved for a rule to shew cause why an information should not be filed
against Mrs. Temperance Green, otherwise Shreiber, Mrs. Wildman, Jane Barchas,
Robert Atkyns, Mary Thomasin, and the Reverend Mr. Stevens, for a conspiracy,
since carried into execution, to take away from his father's house young Mr. Shreiber,
an infant of the age of seventeen years, who was entitled to a large fortune when he
came of age, and to marry him, in Scotland, to a Mrs. Green (one of the defendants),
a widow, of small fortune, of the age of thirty-five. The motion was made at the
instance of Mr. Shreiber, the father of the young man.
The Court, when it was first moved, made some difficulty in granting the rule to
show cause, owing to its not being the eldest son and heir that was taken away; and
directed the motion to stand over till the cases had been looked into, where either
informations had been granted, or indictments had [37] been held to lie, for taking
away a child who was not an heir.
Some days afterwards, Lord Mansfield said, that they had lookeddlt4Athe cases,
which were many, both old and modern, and that they had no difficultyin granting
the rule to show cause, and he particularly directed Morgan to look into the case of
The King against Lord Ossulston and Others (a).
The matter was however soon afterwards made up between Mr. Shreiber and his
son and daughter, and never came again before the Court.
Lord Mansfield, in this case, directed a search to be made in the Crown Office for
informations on this subject, in consequence of which the following list was obtained.
Only one of the informations was framed on the statute 4 & 5 P. & M. c. 8.
Trinity, 14 & 15 Geo. 2. Somersetshire. Rez v. Francis Molloy. Information
granted against the defendant for taking away Mary Norman, a virgin, and unmarried,
between seventeen and eighteen years of age. That A. B., C. D., E. F., and G. H. had,
by lawful means, the order and governance of one Mary Norman, the daughter of
J. Norman, and by consent of J. Norman placed her under the care of one J. Staggs,
a schoolmaster, to be educated; that she was entitled to a considerable fortune of
£3000 and upwards, personal estate; that defendants, in the night-time, unlawfully
entered the house of the said J. Staggs, and carried her away with intent to
marry her.
Hilary, 15 Geo. 2, 1741. Kent. Rex v. Cornforth and Others(b). Information
granted against the defendants for a conspiracy in taking away one Mary Boone,
(f) The general rule, now well established, is, that where the money to be
recovered would be assets, the counts may be joined. See Ord v. Fenwick, B. R., M.
43 G. 3, 3 East, 104; Partridge v. Court Exch., H. 58 G. 3, 5 Price, 412; 7 Price, 591,
S. C.; Clark v. Hougham, B. R., T. 4, G. 4, 3 Dowl. & Ry. 322; S. C. 2 B. & C. 149;
2 Saund. 117 d. (n), 5th ed. As to the rule in case of executors defendants, see Ashby
v. Ashby, B. R., M. 8 G. 4, 1 Man. & Ry. 180; S. C. 7 B. & C. 444.
(a) B. R., H. 12 G. 3, 2 Str. 1107. (b) B. R., H. 15 G. 2, 2 Str. 1162.
526
THE KING 'V. GREEN
3 DOUGL as.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1029&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)