Case ID: dallam_1/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAYLOR, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JUNE TERM, 1844.
    No. 1.
    Raymond Darly v. Chas. Chevallier.
    (See .)
    
      Appeal from, San Augustine.
    
    
      
      .—Darly v. Chevalier, p. 555.
      1 Errors not objected to in trial court can not be raised on appeal. Edwards v. Peoples, Dal., 359; Mann v. Thruston, Dal., 370; Bailey v. Hardy, Dal., 376; Wescott v. Menard, Dal., 503; Hansborough v. Towns, 1 T., 58; Crosby v. Houston, 1 T., 203; Burton v. Anderson, 1 T., 93; O'Conner v. Towns, 1 T., 107; Jones v. Black, 1 T., 527; Cloud v. Smith, 1 T., 611; Swenson v. Walker, 3 T., 93, 110; Hopkins v. Donaho, 4 T, 336; Coles v. Perry, 7 T., 109; Davenport v. Lackie, 8 T., 351; Pierson v. Burney, 15 T., 272; Shelby v. Burtis, 18 T., 644; Bullock v. Hayter, 24 T., 9; Robinson v. Mattison, 25 T. Supp., 451; Elliot v. Mitchell, 28 T., 105; Allen v. Traylor, 31 T., 124; Andrews v. Jones, 36 T., 149; Hughes v. Roper, 42 T., 116; Carter v. Eames, 44 T., 544; Johnson v. Blunt, 48 T., 38; Ragsdale v. Robinson, 48 T., 379; Life Ins. Co. v. Ray, 50 T., 511; Urquhart v. Womack, 53 T., 616; Brooke v. Clark, 57 T., 105; Caruth v. Grigsby, 57 T., 259; Farley v. Deslonde, 58 T., 588; Long v. Garnett, 59 T., 229; Langton v. Marshall, 59 T., 269; Flanagan v. Pearson, 61 T., 302; Gaines v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 64 T., 18; Ford v. Cowen, 64 T., 129; Blum v. Golden, 66 T., 621; Cannon v. Cannon, 66 T., 682; Tevis v. French, 71 T., 59; Ellis v. Garvey, 76 T., 371; Shornick v. Bennett, 77 T., 244; Brown v. Perez, 79 T., 157; Cason v. Conner, 83 T., 26; Hanrick v. Curley, 93 T., 458; Lytle v. Custead, 4 T. C. A., 490; Baker v. Collins, 4 T. C. A., 520; Spencer v. James, 10 T. C. A., 327; Eastham v. Sims, 11 T. C. A., 133; Prestage v. Loving, 1 App. C., sec. 707; Adams v. Duggan, 1 App. C., sec. 1268; Sears v. Green, 1 U. C., 734.
      2 In order to maintain action against executor or administrator, claim must be duly authenticated, presented and rejected. Graham v. Vining, 1 T., 639; Tompkins v. Bennett, 3 T., 36, 49; Harrison v. Knight, 7 T., 47; Hall v. McCormick, 7 T., 269; Millican v. Millican, 15 T., 460; Thompson v. Branch, 35 T., 21; Bank v. Higgins, 72 T., 66; Jenkins v. Cain, 72 T., 88; Kiolbassa v. Raley, 1 T. C. A., 165; Perkins v. Traynham, 3 App. C., sec. 78; Ballard v. Murphy, 4 App. C., sec. 171; Lainer v. Taylor (T. C. A.), U. R. C., 1897. Presentation and rejection after suit is filed, is not sufficient. Thompson v. Branch, 35 T., 21. And authentication, presentation, rejection and date of same should be specifically alleged and proved. Cummings v. Jones, Dal., 531; Graham v. Vining, 1 T., 639; Graham v. Vining, 1 T., 669; Hall v. McCormick, 7 T., 269, 278; Deen v. Duffield, S T., 235; Fulton v. Black, 21 T., 424; Wiley v. Pinson, 23 T., 486; Walters v. Prestidge, 30 T., 65; Swift v. Trotti, 52 T., 498; Tolbert v. McBride, 75 T., 95; Rogers v. Harrison, 1 App. C., sec. 495. Indorsement on claim rejecting it, is prima facie proof of rejection, in absence of plea of non est factum. Tolbert v. McBride, 75 T., 95. These rules are as applicable to claims secured by liens as to unsecured claims. Graham v. Vining, 1 T., 639; Graham v. Vining, 2 T., 433; Danzey v. Swinney, 7 T., 617; Conkrite v. Hart, 10 T., 140, 141; Crosby v. McWillie, 11 T., 94; Duty v. Graham, 12 T., 427, 437; Robertson v. Paul, 16 T., 472, 475; Cunningham v. Taylor, 20 T., 126; Converse v. Sorley, 39 T., 515; Buchanan v. Wagnon, 62 T., 375; Wilson v. Harris, 91 T., 427. It is not necessary to verify and present claim to independent executor before bringing suit. Pleasants v. Davidson, 34 T., 459; Black v. Rockmore, 50 T., 88, 99; Smyth v. Caswell, 65 T., 379; Ellis v. Mabry, 25 T. C. A., 164. If executor allows claim and rejects lien, suit can not be maintained to foreclose lien. Mortgage Co. v. Jackman, 77 T., 622; George v. Ryon, 94 T., 317; Moore v. Glass, 6 T. C. A., 368. In such cases the lien must be enforced through probate court and not by an independent action in another court, except where claimant has some legal or equitable right connected with claim, which can not be adjudicated in probate court. Cunningham v. Taylor, 20 T., 126; Cannon v. McDaniel, 46 T., 303; George v. Ryon, 94 T., 317; Moore v. Glass, 6 T. C. A., 368; Perkins v. Traynham, 3 App. C., sec. 78. When both claim and lien on land are rejected, only remedy is In district court. Leslie v. Elliott, 26 T. C. A., 578. Presentation to and rejection by one of several executors is sufficient to authorize suit. Deen v. Duffield, 8 T., 235. Failure to present claim within one year from appointment of administrator does not defeat action to foreclose lien. Phillips v. Mortgage Co., 90 T., 195. When a lien claim is rejected, claimant may have judgment in district court for establishment of lien as well as debt. Cunningham v. Taylor, 20 T., 126; Perkins v. Sterne, 23 T., 561; George v. Ryon, 94 T., 317 (reversing George v. Ryon, T. C. A., U. R. C., 1900); Jenkins v. Cain (T. Sup.), U. R. C., 1889. Presenting claim without presenting lien is sufficient presentation, though the better practice is to present both. Danzey v. Swinney, 7 T., 617; Cundiff v. Simpson, 32 T., 144; Cannon v. McDaniel, 46 T., 303; Mortgage Co. v. Jackman, 77 T., 622. Presenting claim alone is not Waiver of lien. Ball v. Hill, 48 T., 634; Kempner v. Comer, 73 T., 196; Sutherland v. Elmendorf, 24 T. C. A., 137. In a contest between lien creditors, appellant can not on appeal object for first time that appellee’s claim was not duly authenticated and presented, where administrator is not party to appeal. Watt v. White, 46 T., 338. Holder of vendor’s lien note is not required to present claim to administrator of deceased indorser before bringing suit against maker to foreclose lien. Watt v. White, 46 T., 338.
    
   BAYLOR, Justice.

Two points present themselves for our consideration in this case, which are alleged as grounds of error for a reversal of the judgment below.

1. That the note sued was payable on the contingency of the return of the payee from San Antonio, and that it was not proven on the trial that he had ever returned.

2. That it is not alleged and proven that the claim had ever been presented to the appellant, as administrator of the payor.

In regard to the first point it will be sufficient to say that the note bears a credit of $100, which, added to length of time which had elapsed between the making of the note and the commencement of the suit, was sufficient to raise the presumption that the contingency had happened.

The second point is of more consequence. This court has decided, that under out statute it is necessary to allege and prove that the claim had been presented to the administrator and refused by him, and that this court would reverse judgments in the courts below, where such allegation and proof was wanting. See Cummings, Administrator, v. Jones. This case at bar was commenced before the passage of our statute, and although its provisions are similar to those of Louisiana, yet we feel bound to conform to the Louisiana decisions in cases arising before our statute. In Louisiana it is necessary to present claims to an administrator before suing on them; but unless advantage is taken in the court below of such nonpresentation, the appellate tribunal will not notice the defect. In the case at bar no objection was taken in the court below to the want of an allegation of the presentation and refusal of the claim, and this court will not now set aside the judgment for that reason. This decision is not to be understood as overruling the case of Cummings v. Jones, and the decision in that case will be adhered to.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed with costs.

Affirmed.