The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-25 00:00:00

A CASE of IMPORTANCE to BANKERS.
In thr, romi of Chaneory, the cimse of Farhall e Farliall"
I,lli heel beard, which raise ,I a tineLtlon of some importance
F' mikr 10.. . . .

,
The suit was instituted for the admini,tratitm of the
• -t Rt, of Mr. Eichard Farhall. who died in December,
I ....I. Ile was A (mist. awe of the I /,ndon and County
tkire; Corn pany at their l'etw.,rth branch. His will
wt • proved by his willow, she acted ro; sole exe-
cutrix. She continued to keep an account with the
i.s,lt. it hi. h was entitled '• Mr. Itichard Farballs
Account," and cheeks drawn nis.n it were
Mary Farhall, for Executors of Iliehard Far-
.ll, th turinghis lifethnethe bank had made
testatt,r, to itecurewlitth he had deposited
with olne of his title deeds. 'The widowoverdrew
th.• account after his death, and, in pursuance of
a .W ,r in the will, Ilepr.ited some other title-deeds of
thel -tator with the bank as security for this further
The testator's real estates were afterwards
:oil nut of the proceeds the moneys advanced by
th.• lank were partly repaid. There remained, how-
et, r, halance slue to them a L'9S7. For this sum,
lx (Ii intere4 and costs, they claimed to prove in this
suit a.ukin the testator's rotate. Viee.ehaneullor
a.!mltted the claim, and the plaintiff appealed.
exerutrix bad become insolvent. The money
lint ht• the lank appeared to have been employed by
r to a great extent on her own account.
Mr. rry, ().C., and Mr. Ince were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Waller were for the bank. •
'itt :No ice James said that it seemed to him quite
ci ir that tie Uuts no legal debt. TO say that the
mere fact that an account was opened by an exe
rotor with a bank in that character would create
a. debt a.fainst the testator's estate would he to
give the executor unlimited power over the property.
It want true that an executor could create a charge
upon the testator's assets, and the bank had in this

case already got the benefit of such a charge—. But
to say that the executor might borrow money from any
one as executor, and that this would creates chaum upon
the testator's estate, was a proposition for which there
was no authority, and it would be contrary to all
principle. The contract was made in this ca.se with
the executrix, and she was liable upon it. It was
argued that there was an equity arising out of the
fact that swine of the money had been employed iu pay-
ing debts of the testator, and the rase of "Haynes r.
Forshaw," before Lord Justice Turner when Vice-
Chancellor, was relied upon. But when the observa-
tions of the Vice-rhancellor in that case were looked
at altogether it was char that they applied only to a
case where the executor hal properly applied the
money in paying the testator's debts. 'But it did not
mean that if a man lent money to an executor, who
sail I an, going to pay the testator's debts with it and
he did not pay them, the lender was entitled to stand
as a creditor on the testator's estate for the money so
lent. This claim of the bank must therefore be
allowed.

Lord Justice Mellish was of the same opinion. He
thought the law was perfectly settled that upon a
contract niade by an executor after the death of
the testator the executor was only liable per-
sonally, and he could not he sued in such a way m
to get execution against the testator's property. Debts
contracted by the executor could not come into com-
petition with the debts of the testator. Therefore this
claim could not be allowed.