Case ID: tenn_14/html/0302-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Green, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

M’Nairy vs. Bell.
    Administration limited to certain specific eifects of the deceased, or for the performance of a single act, may be granted by the county courts of this State.
    George Bell, in his lifetime, recovered against Mont* gomery Bell, and his securities in appeal to the supreme Court, a judgment for several thousand dollars. After the recovery'of said judgment, and before the same was fully paid 'off, George Bell departed this life intestate, leaving as his next of kin, the legatees of Margaret Tait. At the October term, 1833, of the Davidson county court of pleas and quarter sessions, there being no general administrator upon said Bell’s estate, Nath’l. A. M’Nairy, ■at the request of the legatees of Margaret Tait, applied to have letters of administration granted to him on the estate of said Bell, deceased, limited for the purpose of reviving said judgment against said Montgomery and his securities; and the said court of pleas and quarter sessions, at said October term, granted letters of administration to said Nathaniel A., so limited as aforesaid, upon said estate. And thereupon, said M’Nairy caused a scire facias to issue to said Montgomery and his securities, to show cause why said judgment be not revived. Execution issued thereon. The said Montgomery and his securities thereupon appeared and for cause pleaded that said court of pleas and quarter sessions had no power or authority to grant said letters of administration so limited as aforesaid. To which plea there was a demurrer.
    
      Francis B. Fogg, for the plaintiff in error.
    The county court of this State, by the act of 1794, chapter 1, section 47, has general authority to grant administration, “to make orders for issuing letters of administration.” Its authority is extended farther than the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, for where there are no assets personal to be recovered: the act of 1831, ch. ...... . , , . ,. 24, gives jurisdiction to the county court, where land is situated, to grant administration. Having authority to grant letters of administration, the meaning of the words letters of administration, and the nature of an administration, must be derived from the common law. Before the county courts had the authority granted to them in North Carolina, administrations, “orders for administration” were granted by the Governor, the general court or precinct court; but the “letters of administration” were to be signed by the Governor, sealed with the colony seal, and only issue from the secretary’s office. See act of 1715, ch. 48, in the first section of which, the orders heretofore granted were to have the same effect as if granted by “any ordinary or other ecclesiastical judge' or person.” It speaks of a caveat, an ecclesiastical law term, and the law authorizes appeals, which is a term also derived from the civil and ecclesiastical law.
    Stanley vs. Barnes, 1 Haggard, 221, (3 Eccl. Rep. page 92,) limited administration decreéd to recover and receive three several sums of money and invest them in the funds. Shaffington vs. White, administration granted, limited to lease-hold property to a nominee of the possessor. In the goods of Steadman, (2 Haggard, 59,) administration limited to a certain legacy granted to the representative of the substituted legatee. 4 Eccl. Rep. 21. In the goods of the elector of Hesse, 1 Haggard, 93: 3 Ecclesiastical Reports, 42, the court granted to the agent of a foreign prince an administration limited to substantiate proceedings in chancery and to a receipt of the debt. See also Harris vs. Milburn, 2 Haggard, 62: Woolley vs. Gordon, 3Philemore, 315: 1 Ecclesiastical Reports, 403: 1 Williams on executors, 327 to 331.
    Suppose several limited administrations are taken out, •what harm is done. A creditor who is in equity, and not legally the owner must prove his right if required in the proceedings both at law and in equity. It does not prevent a general administation, oras it is called, anadmin-istration ceterorum, that is, of all the restol the property. And if there is any fraud or collision, the next of kin or other creditors can contest it. In this case, George Bell was one of the executors of Mrs. Tait; the note on which his judgment was founded was given for land, to the three executors; the note was endorsed in blank, and filled up by the lawjmr on trial, who issued the writ in the name of George Bell alone. A judgment was finally recovered thereon in this court, part of the money was paid, George Bell dies, and no general administration is applied for or granted. This judgment, when recovered, belongs not to the general creditors of George Bell. All this is verified by affidavit in the court of probate, and may be again re-examined, if required, in this court. If the executors of-Mrs. Tait, whose agent obtained this administration, are not entitled to this debt, I will admit that issue may be taken on that point, and if found against us we cannot have judgment on the scire facias. The administration does not conclude the defendant from denying any thing he chooses, and if my clients are not the owners of the judgment, the administration is obtained under false pretences and is void or voidable; I think void.
    
      G. S. Yerger, contra.
    Admitted the law of England was as stated by Mr. Fogg, but he insisted that the acts of Assembly of 1715, ch. 43, 1794, ch. 47 and 1831, ch. 24, had materially changed the law. By these acts the county court had authority only to grant a general administration. A special or limited one is wholly unknown to our law, and was so intended by the legislature.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In England, administration limited to certain specific effects of the deceased, or for the performance of a single act, may be granted. See Williams on Executors, 326. By our act of 1794, ch. 1, sec. 47, the court of pleas and quarter sessions is clothed with the entire jurisdiction upon this subject. “It may,” says the act, “make orders for issuing letters of administration.” There is no restriction in this or any other act, upon the power of the court to make orders for issuing letters of administration, and consequently the legislature intended to confer on the county court all the power which the ordinary had in England. As we have seen, that there, administration might be granted for a single act, or limited to certain specific effects, so in like manner it may be done here.

The administration in this case was properly granted, and the suit will be revived and prosecuted in the name of the administrator,

Suit revived.