Case ID: va_29/html/0319-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Commonwealth v. Hudgin.
    June, 1830.
    Administrators — Appointment—Jurisdiction.—A resident of Kentucky dies intestate there, having- no estate in Virginia but a claim on this commonwealth for money: Held, the circuit court of Henrico county, wherein is the seat of government, has j urisdiction to grant administration of such decedent’s estate.
    Hudgin applied to the circuit court of Henrico, for administration of the estate of Walter Graham deceased, who died in the state of Kentucky intestate, leaving no other estate in Virginia but a claim against the commonwealth, for compensation for military service rendered by him, as an officer of the state line, during the war of the revolution. Hudgin produced a written instrument executed by the widow of the intestate, in due form, relinquishing her right to the administration. The attorney general contested the grant of administration to Hudgin, on the ground, that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant administration in such a case; and that the jurisdiction appertained solely to the general court. The circuit court held that it had jurisdiction, and granted the administration to Hudgin. And, there being many similar applications to the circuit court for administration, in like cases, the attorney general, in order that the question as to the jurisdiction of that court in such cases, might be definitively settled, appealed to this court.
    The case was argued by the attorney general for the commonwealth, and Green and Heigh for the appellees.
    The question depended intirely on the construction and effect of the statutes, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 67, § 10, p. 222, ch. 104, l 12, 16, 32, pp. 377, 378, 382.
    
      
      See g-enerally, monographic note on "Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest. 5 Gratt. 6.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The jurisdiction of our courts of probat and administration, is prescribed with so much precision by our statutes, that there is no occasion to resort to the english doctrines on that subject, except so far as to ascertain the meaning of the phrase in our statutes, referring, in certain cases, *to “the county or corporation, in" which the estate of the intestate, or the greater part thereof, shall be,” as a criterion of jurisdiction. That is the rule to be applied to this case. There is no case in point in the eng-lish courts, the supreme power there residing in a natural person. But, resprting to the analogies of the english law, we may safely say, that the place, where a debt, constituting the whole of the estate, must be demanded and paid or prosecuted, and where all the “ documentary proofs constituting the foundation of the claim are found, is that in which the estate is; and, therefore, that the administration in question was duly granted. The order is affirmed.