“If you want to establish a position where they have no wiggle room, you are the general executor… I am the occupant of the office of General Executor of the FRANK O’COLLINS ESTATE. Any of these people are public servants, public trustees. They fall under my rule as general executor. This is one of our key realizations. When we want to describe ourselves, you are the occupant of the office of general executor of the LEGAL PERSON ESTATE.”
Frank O’Collins talking on 8-10-11, during the broadcast, frank-talkshoe-90342.
Notwithstanding the seeming myriad of unsubstantiated claims to the contrary and with all due respect to all concerned and affected parties; in the most simplistic terms possible, it is a legal and equitable impossibility for a living man or woman to be executor of their own property, since there are only two types of appointments to such an office recognised in either jurisdiction –
1. Executor dativus, who is one called an administrator to an intestate.
2. Executor testamentarius, or one appointed to the office by the last will of a testator, and this is what is usually meant by the term.
Both require the death of a physical body that previously had life and an estate to bequeath, which could never be said of the fictional entity known as the LEGAL PERSON or the capitalised name given in an application for a birth certificate.
It is well established under international law that the doctrine of what was known as ‘civil death’ has been largely abolished, on the basis that it generally involved depriving a man of what are now generally considered to be his fundamental human rights, as a punishment for being found guilty of criminal allegations in certain jurisdictions; one of those crimes that could result in such a penalty was migrating to a foreign nation.
Therefore, it is a self-evident logical fallacy that a living man or woman could take control of their legal and equitable estates [or a court of law for that matter] by appointing themselves the executor of those interests already held to be in their name by the parties upon whom documents claiming such an office has arisen are usually served. And it is their name, despite the plethora of opinions to the contrary.
The reason for this is also simplistically emphatic: the name is a gift granted to children by their parents /guardians in perpetuity, free and clear of all encumbrances, irrespective of any and all trusts and/or contracts that might arise subsequently. It cannot even be viewed as an implied trust, since it is a grant without obligations of performance or liabilities; an unconditional gift, unbound by the rules of equity, statute or contract, which we are not even obliged to accept or acknowledge upon conveyance of the beneficial ownership of such.
In any event, equity would never permit an individual to be grantor, sole trustee and sole beneficiary of a trust registered in the name recorded on their birth certificate, the misconceived premise upon which much of the validity of the purported ‘Executor Remedy’ fatally relies. This is because no man can grant and administer any interest that is settled into trust for his own benefit; there must be other parties; namely, at least another trustee and another beneficiary, without whom no conveyance of any interest can take legal effect. It is also well established that a trustee cannot be considered as such without his prior knowledge and consent, whilst there is no such rule affecting beneficiaries, whose lives often transpire without the knowledge of the interests granted to them under the rules of both private and public trusts.
I have also seen no evidence that a judge is really administering a birth bond in our name whenever we appear in court to accept responsibility for the matters relating to it. It is, as Winston Shrout himself said when he originally presented it in his seminars, just a theory. However, after hundreds of hours spent burning the midnight oil searching for it, I have seen nothing that compels me to deduce that there is such a thing in existence, despite the fact that it is certainly correct to say that the sweat equity of the British people has been used by criminal governments directed by a hidden hand, in order to continue servicing the interest payments on the unpaid Crown war debts, which were first imposed upon the people in 1799, as an allegedly ‘voluntary’ moral obligation to help Britain, and ultimately, Wellington, win the war against the French forces led by Napoleon. Needless to say, both sides were financed by the House of Rothschild.
History of British Income Tax by HMRC
Having studied in great depth the work of Winston Shrout, Mary Croft, Rob Menard, Creditors in Commerce, Tony King, Tim Turner, Jack Smith et al, in early 2009 I was on the brink of attempting to create a bonded promissory note in my trade name, which I intended to do by serving a package of extremely powerful documents and instruments on the US or UK Treasury, with instructions for deposit, as has been done by several researchers I spoken to. Not one of them received any form of response, but I did read a report, which appeared to have been issued on an IRS website, that claimed people have been investigated and/or prosecuted for allegedly attempting to de-fraud the US Treasury using similar presentments.
I inevitably scrapped my misguided intention on the basis that there was no evidence that anybody had had any success in doing such a thing and because the last thing I wanted to do was knowingly contract with any aspect of the military-industrial complex and the Rothschild-controlled banking system, which I have somewhat obsessively endeavoured to avoid by various and largely successful administrative processes and declarations that are documented in this e-book and on the website.
Soon afterwards I discovered the Government Annuities Act 1929, which granted the statutory authority to issue Life Annuities to the National Debt Commissioners, in the name of any natural person they deem fit, thereby giving rise to the realisation that those particular instruments are far more attractive than any bond, which is a promissory note by another name, since Life Annuities generate ever-increasing profits and interest for the owner [grantor], until the production of a certificate of death in the name of the person upon whose life the annuity depends [the beneficiary]; whereas, a negotiable instrument such as a bond can only create the credit of its face value, plus interest, for the holder, unless of course the holder happens to be a bankster, who can fractionalise its value simply by punching a few keys on a computer keyboard.
Having read a great deal of the material posted at Frank O’Collins’ vast virtual vault of research at the undeniably impressive One Heaven and One Evil websites, it nevertheless seems to me that his foundational argument, that nobody has ever successfully challenged the authority of the papal bulls, therefore the black pope, otherwise known as the Jesuit Supreme General, controls the planet and everything on it, just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
One need only answer the question – who has control of the Vatican’s banking? – to identify the name of the family that rather infamously cares not for who makes the laws of any nation, provided they have control of the issuance of money and credit; as per the findings in the Grand Illusions section of this work, all such investigations ultimately lead to the House of Rothschild.
Nevertheless, the British Constitution, from Magna Carta to the Act of Union, was and remains a successful legal challenge to the authority of popery on the shores of what is known as the Commonwealth. In support of this contention, in A practical treatise of the law of mortmain, and charitable uses and trusts, the author Leonard Shelford wrote that:
“In the reign of Queen Mary, the papal authority and faith were restored to their former state, and such divine service and administration of sacraments as were commonly used in the last year of Henry VIII. revived. On the accession of Elizabeth, the national religion again underwent a change ; the statutes of Mary were repealed, and those of Edward revived; and another Act of Uniformity was passed. From the articles framed and published by him, were selected and compiled the thirty-nine which comprise the doctrine and polity of the present church. The book of Common Prayer received additional alterations. The usurped power of the pope in this kingdom was destroyed, and all his connections with it cut off, and the crown again restored to its supremacy over spiritual men and causes, and the patronage of bishopricks indisputably vested in the crown.”
The allegedly “unwritten British Constitution” is yet another self-evident untruth, since the following list of charters, declarations and acts of parliament confirm the existence of material evidence and legal effects to the contrary:
Charter of Liberties
Magna Carta
Act of Supremacy
Declaration & Bill of Rights
The Coronation Oath
Act of Settlement
Claim of Right Act
Union with Scotland Act
All of which [without limitation] make up the written series of documents that comprise the British Constitution, which was enshrined in common law for the benefit of the people and cannot be repealed or superseded without an express act of a parliament that clearly has the mandate of the governed, which was arguably lost without equivocation when Her Majesty’s Government ordered the armed forces to engage in illegal actions that would inevitably result in the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, in the lands known as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, to name but a few of the nations that have been all but decimated upon the whims of those who consider the vast majority of the masses to be slaves who have outlived their usefulness.
These orders could only have been given authority in law by Elizabeth II, no doubt encouraged by her openly genocidal husband, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, with or without the private concurrence of the other two acting ‘Sovereigns Paramount’ of the Council of 3: the Jesuit Superior General, Adolfo Nicolás; and Baron Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild.
It is perhaps reasonable to deduce from all the credible and incredible evidence currently available, that these three individuals could be regarded as the de facto controllers of the Neo-Feudalist system that has been imposed upon the indigenous peoples of the Earth in the guise of freedom, security and democracy, by an unaccountable, international and unlawful triumvirate of monarchical, ecclesiastical and financial powers.
That being said, one other thing seems certain; that the House of Rothschild dominates all forms of international trade through a banking monopoly that ultimately holds control of the financial assets of the Vatican and the Crown, as well as the beneficial interests of its commercial, empirical and hereditary partners in crimes against Mankind. It has been claimed by some researchers that the surviving European monarchies, Adam Weishaupt’s faction of the Jesuits and the Rothschilds consolidated and developed their mutually vested interests in the late 18th century at the latest, following Amshel Rothschild’s alleged financing of the Bavarian Illuminati, for the purposes of forming a secret society to infiltrate, direct and control the grand lodges of freemasonry, the business of monarchy and the destruction of the Church of Rome’s power and influence from within.
Despite this, there are still persistent unsubstantiated claims that the Vatican still “pulls the strings” in Britain, which is allegedly why the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll is a remedy for reclaiming dominion over one’s soul, as well as the body it is encased within and the property that it is found to be in possession of, having been unlawfully and inequitably claimed by the pope in the papal bulls known as Unam Sanctam 1302 [quoted below], Romanus Pontifex 1455 and Aeterni Regis 1481:
“The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
There is arguably nothing that the Vatican, and the Houses of Windsor and Rothschild for that matter, would like more than all of us believing that the pope owns and controls the planet, but all of the current research materials available suggest that the Papal City State and its Jesuit overlords are one of three prevailing factions of the vested interests of the surviving Black Nobility of Europe, who are secretly and ruthlessly controlling and exploiting the world’s resources, whilst collaborating in an attempt to dramatically cull Mankind before their crimes become known to the masses they have programmed to be judgmental, vindictive, violent, graceless and unforgiving; the very opposite of their true divine nature.
Notwithstanding the entirely unlawful attempt to impose an unaccountable EU corporatist dictatorship by Her Majesty’s Government and its partners, the Constitutional Laws of the United Kingdom supersede all other laws in existence in Her Majesty’s courts, where the jurisdiction of popery and foreign government cannot legally exist without destroying the validity and mandate of parliament, since it does not have the right to repeal that which it did not enact, such as pivotal constitutional documents, the Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688.
Since the Magna Carta predates the establishment of parliament, its validity is only subject to the common law of the land, not statutory instruments, which also applies to the Declaration of Rights, which took effect as a lawful declaration for and on behalf of the British people, that documented in perpetuity a list or grievances against the formerly papist and despotic monarchy, followed by a list of articles which consisted of that which is strictly prohibited in law, in accordance with the ancient rights, customs, usages and liberties of the people, which date back to at least 600 BCE in the Gregorian count, as evidenced by the Ancient Laws of Cambria, which can be downloaded at the link below:
Here are three relevant sections of the currently extant British constitution for your consideration:
Claim of Right Act 1689
__The Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland containing the Claim of Right and the offer of the Croune to the King and Queen of England.
Wheras King James the Seventh Being a profest papist did assume the Regall power and acted as King without ever takeing the oath required by law wherby the King at his access to the government is obliged to swear To maintain the protestant religion and to rule the people according to the laudable lawes And Did By the advyce of wicked and evill Counsellers Invade the fundamentall Constitution of this Kingdome And altered it from a legall limited monarchy to ane Arbitrary Despotick power and in a publick proclamation asserted ane absolute power to cass annull and dissable all the lawes particularly arraigning the lawes Establishing the protestant religion and did Exerce that power to the subversion of the protestant Religion and to the violation of the lawes and liberties of the Kingdome […]
That by the law of this Kingdome no papist can be King or Queen of this realme nor bear any office whatsomever therin nor can any protestant successor exercise the regall power untill he or she swear the Coronation Oath That all Proclamationes asserting ane absolute power to Cass annull and Dissable lawes The Erecting Schools and Colledges for Jesuits The Inverting protestant Chappells and Churches to publick Mass houses and the allowing Mass to be said are Contrair to Law
That Prelacy and the superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters is and hath been a great and insupportable greivance and trouble to this Nation and contrary to the Inclinationes of the generality of the people ever since the reformatione (they haveing reformed from popery by presbyters) and therfor ought to be abolished.__
The Act of Settlement 1700
That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever [X1 incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same.
Bill of Rights 1688
2. An Act Declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne […] 3. That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
The Bill of Rights is an act of parliament, but it was brought into being as a condition of the succession to the throne of William and Mary of the protestant House of Orange, which was a non-negotiable demand of the men who drafted the Declaration of Rights in the same year, 1688 AD.
It was agreed that parliament and the monarchy would acknowledge by implication and without limitation the unalienable nature of the ancient rights and liberties of the people referred to in the Declaration, which was the result of the consistent development of the expression of the same in the Magna Carta before it and still stands as the law of all Her Majesty’s courts, despite the despicable attempts to create the illusion that the people of these shores could ever be made subject to foreign rule by parliament, without voiding the entire British legal system, which the ancient rights and liberties of the Britons precede by many centuries.
In any event, the attempted abolition of the constitution by only one house of parliament is a lawful impossibility, notwithstanding the House of Lords Act 1999, the Lisbon Treaty, its predecessors and the European Union Amendment Act 2006, as well as prima facie evidence that the lands stolen by the ancestors of the House of Windsor should escheat back to the people, as per the terms of Magna Carta 1215:
“If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.“
Each member of the triumvirate of power is no doubt seriously concerned that the general population doesn’t become cognisant of the fact that their secret order was complicit in the murder of an estimated 18 million people in Europe and Russia during the entirely stage-managed World War II. The part played by the Society of Jesus has been well documented with compelling references and in great detail by Frank O’Collins at One-Evil.org.
Whilst it must be said that absorbing large amounts of information relating to acts of horrifying malevolence can be a thoroughly emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually exhausting experience, it is clear that the clever and articulate researcher and his advocates seem to be overlooking the elephant sitting in the corner of the room with a list of documents that comprise material evidence that the Ancient Customs, Usages, Rights & Liberties of the Free Peoples of Britain and its perceived dominions can never be reduced, repealed or abolished by any parliament, monarch or pope; and which still stand as a successful legal challenge to the supremacy of ecclesiastical law, from the territories latterly known as England to Australia.
Therefore, if this interpretation of the law and equity is correct, as the supplementary evidence cited reflects, at least at face value; any claims with regard to the alleged supremacy of canon law and the validity of the purported ‘Executor Remedy’, for the purposes of which a man must act as executor of his own estate in order to gain sufficient legal standing to administer that which is held to be the property of the capitalised name on his birth or baptism certificate, are fatally misconceived in my unassuming opinion. Notwithstanding any circumstantial evidence to the contrary, I am yet to find any judicial, statutory or academic authority in support of the purported remedy.
However, it must also be stressed that I only seek to facilitate the manifestation of these questions in the hearts of those who have committed themselves to an as yet unproven remedy, rather than convince anybody that my interpretation is the correct one to follow. Indeed, I have learned from my own experiences that we generally learn far more from our errors and omissions than we do from our successes. I humbly invite you to make of that what you will.
Whilst it is certainly true that the rules of equity should be applied to all matters, provided we consider equity to mean natural justice, I have experienced for myself in applications to the Magistrates’ Court, the County Court and High Courts of Chancery and the Queen’s Bench, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, that those allegedly independent tribunals will not apply those rules against an interest of the moneyed aristocracy, who control just about everything within the judicial system and beyond.
The Supreme Court, as dictated by the Registrar of the Queen’s Privy Council, will not even consider challenging clear miscarriages of justice, if such a challenge might involve even the slightest bit of embarrassment for one of her majesty’s favourite law lords of this ill-gotten realm of monopolised trade, finance and tyranny.
If things are that bad in the highest court in the land, it is reasonable to conclude that justice is simply not obtainable in any tribunal in which all the players of the rigged game are working for the Crown, except, of course, the one who loses. This represents an unconscionable conflict of interests, pure and simple, on the basis of which, this allegation, if sustained by irrefutable evidence, could render the entire British legal system null and void, in much the same way ecclesiastical law was abolished by the British Constitution, which remains extant in all Commonwealth nations, subject to the determination of the free peoples dwelling therein.
References
EXECUTOR, trusts. The word executor, taken in its largest sense, has several acceptations. 1. Executor dativus, who is one called an administrator to an intestate. 2. Executor testamentarius, or one appointed to the office by the last will of a testator, and this is what is usually meant by the term.
2. In the civil law, the person who is appointed to perform the duties of an executor as to goods, is called haeres testamentarius; the term executor, it is said, is a barbarism unknown to that law. 3 Atk. 304.
3. An executor, as the term is at present accepted, is the person to whom the execution of a last will and testament of personal estate is , by the testator’s appointment, confided, and who has accepted of the same. 2 Bl. Com. 503; 2 P. Wms. 548; Toller, 30; 1 Will. on Ex. 112 Swinh. t. 4, s. 2, pl. 2.
4. Generally speaking, all persons who are capable of making wills may be executors, and some others beside, as infants and married women. 2 Bl. Corn. 503.
5. An executor is absolute or qualified; his appointment is absolute when he is constituted certainly, immediately, and without restriction in regard to the testator’s effects, or limitation in point of time. It may be qualified by limitation as to the time or place wherein, or the subject matters whereon, the office is to be exercised; or the creation of the office may be conditional. It may be qualified. 1st. By limitations in point of time, for the time may be limited when the person appointed shall begin, or when he shall cease to be executor; as if a man be appointed executor upon the marriage of testator’s daughter. Swinb. p. 4, s. 17, pl. 4. 2. The appointment may be limited to a place; as, if one be appointed executor of all the testator’s goods in the state of Pennsylvania. 3. The power of the executor may be limited as to the subject matter upon which if is to be exercised; as, when a testator appoints. A the executor of his goods and chattels in possession; B, of his choses in action. One may be appointed executor of one thing, only, as of a particular claim or debt due by bond, and the like. Off. Ex. 29; 3 Phillim. 424. But although a testator may thus appoint separate executors of distinct parts of his property, and may divide their authority, yet quoad the creditors of the testator they are all executors, and act as one executor, and may be sued as one executor. Cro. Car. 293. 4. The appointment may be conditional, and the condition may be either precedent or subsequent. Godolph. Orph. Leg. pt. 2, c. 2, s. 1; Off. Ex. 23.
6. An executor derives his interest in the estate of the deceased entirely from the will, and it vests in him from the moment of the testator’s death. 1 Will. Ex. 159; Com. Dig. Administration, B 10; 5 B. & A. 745; 2 W. Bl. Rep. 692. He acquires an absolute legal title to the personalty by appointment, but nothing in the lands of the testator, except by devise. He can touch nothing which was not personal at the testator’s decease, except by express direction. 9 Serg. & Rawle, 431; Gord. Law Dec. 93. Still his interest in the goods of the deceased is not that absolute, proper and ordinary interest, which every one has in his own proper goods. He is a mere trustee to apply the goods for such purposes as are sanctioned by law. 4 T. R. 645; 9 Co. 88; 2 Inst. 236; Off. Ex. 192. He represents the testator, and therefore may sue and recover all the claims he had at the time of his death and may be sued for all debts due by him. 1 Will. Ex. 508, et seq. By the common law, however, such debts as were not due by some writing could not be recovered against the executors of a deceased debtor. The remedy was only in conscience or by a quo minus in the exchequer. Afterwards an action on the case in banco regis was given. Crom t. Jurisdic. 66, b; Plowd. Com. 183: 11 H. VII. 26.
7. The following are the principal duties of an executor: 1. Within a convenient time after the testator’s death, to collect the goods of the deceased, provided he can do so peaceably; when he is resisted, he must apply to the law for redress.
8. – 2. To bury the deceased in a manner suitable to the estate he leaves behind him; and when there is just reason to believe he died insolvent, he is not warranted in expending more in funeral expenses (q. v.) than is absolutely necessary. 2 Will. Ex. 636; 1 Salk. 296; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 204 14 Serg. & Rawle, 64.
9. – 3. The executor should prove the will in the proper office.
10. – 4. He should make an inventory (q. v.) of the goods of the intestate, which should be filed in the office.
11. – 5. He should ascertain the debts and credits of the estate, and endeavor to collect all claims with as little delay as possible, consistently with the interest of the estate.
12. – 6. He should advertise for debts and credits: see forms of advertisements, 1 Chit. Pr. 521.
13. – 7. He should reduce the whole of the goods, not specifically bequeathed into money, with all due expedition.
14.-8. Keep the money of the estate safely, but not mixed with his own, or he may be charged interest on it.
15.-9. Be at all times ready to account, and actually file an account within a year.
16. – 10. Pay the debts and legacies in the order required by law.
17. Co-executors, however numerous, are considered, in law, as an individual person, and; consequently, the acts of any one of them, in respect of the administration of the assets, are deemed, generally, the acts of all. Bac. Ab. Executor, D; Touch. 484; for they have all a joint and entire authority over the whole property Off. Ex. 213; 1 Rolle’s Ab. 924; Com. Dig. Administration, B 12. On the death of one or more of several joint executors, their rights and powers survive to the survivors.
18. When there are several executors and all die, the power is in common transferred to the executor of the last surviving executor, so that he is executor of the first testator; and the law is the same when a sole executor dies leaving an executor, the rights are vested in the latter. This rule has been changed, in Pennsylvania, and, perhaps, some other states, by legislative provision; there, in such case, administration cum testamento annexo must be obtained, the right does not survive to the executor of the executor. Act of Pennsylvania, of March 15 1832. s. 19. In general, executors are not responsible for each other, and they have a right to settle separate accounts. See Joint, Executors.
19. Executors may be classed into general and special; instituted and substituted; rightful and executor de son tort; and executor to the tenor.
20. A general executor is one who is appointed to administer the whole estate, without any limit of time or place, or of the subject-matter.
21. A special executor is one. who is appointed or constituted to administer either a part of the estate, or the whole for a limited time, or only in a particular place.
22. An instituted executor is one who is appointed by the testator without any condition, and who has the first right of acting when there are substituted executors. An example will show the difference between an instituted and substituted executor: suppose a man makes his son his executor, but if he will not act, he appoints his brother, and if neither will act, his cousin; here the son is the instituted executor, in the first degree, the brother is said to be substituted in the second degree, and the cousin in the third degree, and so on. See Heir, instituted, and Swinb. pt. 4, s. 19, pl. 1.
23. A substituted executor is a person appointed executor, if another person who has been appointed refuses to act.
24. A rightful executor is one lawfully appointed by the testator, by his will. Deriving his authority from the will, he may do most acts, before he obtains letters testamentary, but he must be possessed of them before. he can declare in action brought by him, as such. 1 P. Wms. 768; Will. on Ex. 173.
25. An executor de son tort, or of his own wrong, is one, who, without lawful authority, undertakes to act. as executor of a person deceased. To make an executor de son tort, the act of the party must be, 1. Unlawful. 2. By asserting ownership, as taking goods or cancelling a bond, and not committing a mere, trespass. Dyer, 105, 166; Cro. Eliz. 114. 3. An act done before probate of will, or granting letters of administration. 1 Salk. 313. One may be executor de son tort when acting under a forged will, which has been set aside. 3 T. R. 125 . An executor de son tort. The law on this seems to have been borrowed from the civil law doctrine of pro hoerede gestio. See Heinnec. Antiq. Syntagma, lib. 2, tit., 17, §16, p. 468. He is, in general, held responsible for all his acts, when he does anything which might prejudice the estate, and receives no advantage whatever in consequence of his assuming the office. He cannot sue a debtor of the estate, but may be sued generally as executor. See a good reading on the liabilities of executors de son tort, in: Godolph. Orph. Legacy, 91, 93, and 10 Wentw. Pl. 378, for forms of declaring; also, 5 Co. Rep. 50 31 a; Yelv. 137; 1 Brownlow, 103; Salk. 28; Ham. Parties, 273; Imp. Mod. Pl. 94. As to what acts will make a person liable as executor de son tort, see Godolph. O ubi sup.; Gord. Law of Dec. 87, 89; Off. Ex. 181; Bac. Ab. Executor, &c., B 3; 11 Vin. Ab. 215; 1 Dane’s Ab. 561; Bull. N. P. 48; Com. Dig. Administration C 3 Ham. on Part. 146 to 156; 8 John. R. 426; 7 John. R. 161; 4 Mass. 654; 3 Penna. R. 129; 15 Serg. & Rawle, 39.
26. 2. The ussurpation of an office or character cannot confer the rights and privileges of it, although it may charge the usurper with the duties and obligations annexed to it. On this principle an executor de son tort is an executor only for the purpose of being sued, not for the purpose, of suing. In point of form, he is sued as if he were a rightful executor. He is not denominated in the declaration executor (de son tort) of his own wrong. It would be improper to allege that the deceased person with whose estate he has intermeddled died intestate. Nor can he be made a co-defendant with a rightful executor. Ham. Part. 146, 272, 273; Lawes on Plead. 190, note; Com. Dig. Abatement, F 10. If he take out letters of administration, he is still liable to be sued as executor, and in general, it is better to sue him as executor than as administrator. Godolph. 0. Leg. 93, 94, 95, §§2, 3.
27. An executor to the tenor. This phrase is based in the ecclesiastical law, to denote a person who is not directly appointed by the will an executor, but who is charged with the duties which appertain to one; as, “I appoint A B to discharge all lawful demands against my will.” 3 Phill. 116; 1 Eccl. Rep. 374; Swinb. 247 Wentw. Ex. part 4, s. 41 p. 230. Vide. generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.; 11 Vin. Ab. h. t.; Bac. Ab. h. t.; Rolle, Ab. h. t.; Nelson’s Ab. h. t.; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Administration; 1 Supp. to Ves. jr. 8, 90, 356, 438; 2 Id. 69; 1 Vern. 302-3; Yelv. 84 a; 1 Salk. 318; 18 Engl. C. L. Rep. 185; 10 East, 295; 2 Phil. Ev. 289; 1 Rop. Leg.’ 114; American Digests, h. t.; Swinburne, Williams, Lovelass, and Roberts’ several treatises on the law of Executors; Off. Ex. per totum; Chit. Pr. Index; h. t. For the various pleas that may be pleaded by executors, see 7 Wentw. Plead. 596, 602; 10 Id. 378; Cowp. 292. For the origin and progress of the law in relation to executors, the reader is referred to 5 Toull. n. 576, note; Glossaire du Droit Francais, par Delauriere, verbo Executeurs Testamentaires, and the same author on art. 297, of the Custom of Paris; Poth. Des Donations Testamen taires.
Bouvier’s definition of EXECUTOR
INTESTACY. The state or condition of dying without a will.
INTESTABLE. One who cannot by law fully make a testament.
2. An infant, an insane person, or one civilly dead, cannot make a will, for want of capacity or understanding; a married woman cannot make such a will without some special authority, because she is under the power of her hushand. They are all intestable.
INTESTATE. One who, having lawful power to make a will, has made none, or one which is defective in form. In that case, he is said to die intestate, and his estate descends to his heir at law. See Testate.
2. This term comes from the Latin intestatus. Formerly, it was used in France indiscriminately with de-confess; that is, without confession. It was regarded as a crime, on account of the omission of the deceased person to give something to the church, and was punished by privation of burial in consecrated ground. This omission, according to Fournel, Hist. des Avocats, vol. 1, p. 116, could be repaired by making an ampliative testament in the name of the deceased. See Vely, tom. 6, page 145; Henrion De Pansey, Authorite Judiciare, 129 and note. Also, 3 Mod. Rep. 59, 60, for the Law of Intestacy in England.
Bouvier’s defintion of INTERSTATE
DEATH:-
1. Civil and Natural. “There is a death in deede (or natural death), and there is civil death, or death in law, mora civillus and mora naturalis. (Co. Litt. 132a.) Civil death formerly took place in England, when a man was banished or adjured the realm by process of common law, or when a man become professed in religion, for on such an occasion his property devolved as if he were really dead. (Litt. 200; 1 BL Com. 132), and therefore grants of land for life were formerly made for the term of the man’s natural life. The doctrine of civil death in such cases is no abolished. (Rex v Lady Portington, 1 Salk, 162); Stat. 21 Jac. I, c 28.
You must log in to post a comment.