Facts
- Thomas Priestman died in 1784, leaving a debt owed to him by Dundas, Treasurer of the Navy, for £58 13s. 6d.
- Robert Brown obtained probate in the ecclesiastical court under a purported will naming him executor; the will was later determined to be forged.
- Before any revocation, Dundas—without notice of the forgery and relying on the probate under seal—paid Brown the full amount owed to Priestman.
- Priestman’s next of kin later challenged the probate; the probate and will were declared null, Priestman was deemed intestate, and administration was granted to Allen (as representative of the next of kin).
- Allen sued Dundas in an action for money had and received to recover the same sum, arguing the earlier payment to Brown did not discharge the debt.
- The case came to the Court of King’s Bench on a special verdict asking whether, on these facts, the administrator could recover from the debtor.
Issues
- Whether a debtor who pays an apparent executor in good faith under an unrepealed probate remains liable to pay again after the probate is revoked as based on a forged will.
- Whether a common-law court may treat an unrepealed probate as ineffective because of alleged or later-proved defects in the will.
Decision
- Judgment for Dundas (defendant).
- Payment to Brown while probate remained unrepealed was a complete discharge of Dundas’s debt.
- The probate’s later revocation did not retroactively impose liability on a debtor who paid in good faith under the then-effective grant.
- The court treated the unrepealed probate as conclusive in the common-law forum and refused to allow it to be impeached there.
Legal Principles
- An unrepealed probate is conclusive in common-law courts; while it stands, it cannot be collaterally attacked in a temporal court.
- A debtor who, without notice of fraud and in good faith, pays the personal representative who holds facially valid probate is discharged, even if the probate is later declared void and administration is later granted to the true representative.
- Revocation of probate operates through the probate jurisdiction; it does not automatically invalidate, in common-law litigation against third parties, transactions completed in reliance on the grant while it remained in force.
Conclusion
The court held that a debtor who pays an apparent executor under an unrepealed probate is protected from having to pay the debt twice, even when the probate is later set aside as founded on a forged will, because common-law courts must accept the probate’s effect while it remains unrevoked.