Case ID: mo_12/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Birch", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WOOD & OLIVER vs. ELLIS, Adm’r. of PEMBERTON.
    When a judgment against the deceased is presented in the county court for allowance against the estate, itis the duty of the court to classify it for payment.
    ERROR TO LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.
    1. The appeal was properly taken on the refusal of the county court to classify the plaintiff’s demand for payment. Rev. Code, 1845, administration, art. 8, sdct. 1. Itis perhaps true that the administrator might have been sued on his bond for not paying the plaintiff’s judgment: but the remedy adopted by the plaintiff of procuring an order classifying his demand and ordering payment, was shorter and better.
    
      2. It may have been the duty of the administrator to classify the demand himself ; but not doing if, it was the plaintiffs right to have done by the court. No affidavit was necessary, for the demand had already been established according to law ; an'd the order of classification merely wanting for its complete allowance. Se'e administration law, Kev. Code 1845, art. 4, sect. 22. When a demand is exhibited for allowance in the county court, two things ate necessary to the allowance, 1st. The ascertainment of the debt. 2d. The determination of its class. Then it may be, must be paid by the administrator. But when a judgment is obtained against the administrator in another court, as in this instance, there is no allowance until the .judgment is filed in the county court; and then the only act to complete allowance is classi■fication, which was done in this case.
    3d. The county court by refusing to allow and classify in case, have forbidden the administrator to pay, which is nullification of the judgment.
    4th. It may be contended that mandamus is the proper remedy, but not with any success if "the position assumed by plaintiff is good, that classification is allowance in this case.
    5th. It was contended that the plaintiffs demand was barred by three years limitation ; but not so, for the demand was legally established by the scire facias against the administrator, •and besides there never was any notice given of the emanation of defendant’s letters.
   Judge Birch

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment of this court upon the principal facts of this case,may be seen by reference to its former opinion, (10 Mo. 882.) That judgment having been properly certified to the circuit court, it became its duty, upon proper motion, to declare the law to be that the county court should classify the demand of the plaintiffs as originally prayed for$ and the proceedings of the circuit court, certified to the county court, would constitute the guide of that tribunal. The judgment of the circuit court, therefore, which dismissed the cause is reversed, and the cause remanded for the purpose of being proceeded in conformably with this opinion.