Case File No. 15

Elizabeth Beaves

Hunt, Stabb, Preston & Co. v. the Estate of Thomas Beaves
6 November 1820
[Before Robert Carter, JP]

To recover £70. Balance of an Acc^t.—the pltiffs stated that the deceased died in the year 1810. that at the time of his death he owed pltiffs £65- that the other part of the sum sued was supplied to his widdow up to the year 1818 Elizabeth Beaves, Widdow of the deceased, objected. that the debt was of a long standing and incorrect- [that] the property she possessed in Fishing Room, House and Gardens was left her by her Mother- that since the death of her Husband, no claim was made on her for her Husband's debt- and that no Account to that effect was rendered her since her Husbands death- altho she had dealings in pltiffs House every year since, and had balances in her favour until 1817, when she fell in debt and last year her fishing Room and all her premises were Sold by order of Ewen Stabb, agent for pltiffs, at public Auction, and purchased by themselves for £28. that the Sale was made without her Consent and without any lawful Authority—the Widdow pleaded the Act of Limitation so far as respects the debt of her deceased Husband and that the premises So Sold be restored into her possession. Proceedings in this Case was had in the Supreme Court previous to this hearing. Judgement was now Staid until them proceedings was known ~

Hunt, Stabb, Preston & Co. v. the Estate of Thomas Beaves
11 December 1820
[Before Robert Carter, JP]

This case was before the Court on aformer day to recover a debt of £78.9 contracted by the deceased Thomas Beaves with the pltiffs—on property in the possession of his Widdow Elizabeth Beaves ~ The point contended for is that the property was left to the Wife after her Marriage with Beaves—The property was left by Will to Elizabeth Thomas—it is admitted they were lawfully married—Beaves died intestate and in debt to Hunt Stabb Preston & C^o.—and the Supplies continued to be given and the Account Since has been carried on under the head of Elizabeth Beaves & Son—pleads the Statute of Limitation—under the present view of the Case as Stated on the 6^th. of November last—and the pltiffs admitting there had been no right exercised on the property in question by def^t. deceased nor have they looked thereto but Consider notwithstanding the property of the Wife is that of the Husband and liable for his debts—the Court observed that various Accounts in this Case have been Submitted to the Court and it has been attempted to continue the Accounts so as to prevent the Statute of limitation being abar to the debt of the deceased—With whatever ingenuity these attempts maybe made this Court is ever awake to prevent their effect being extended beyond legal bounds ~ the Statute of Limitation is a bar to the debt, but independent of the Statute it has been held to be law that property acquired of the Wife either before of after Marriage over which the Husband has exercised no manner of right or control is not liable to the debt of the Husband ~ Judgement-the Action against the property of the Widdow cannot prevail ~ pltiff nonsuited ~