Case ID: tenn_1/html/0348-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BASHAW vs. BLAKEMORE'S ADMINISTRATOR.
    A settlement made by commissioners appointed by the county court, with an administrator, although not stating the dignity of the debts paid, is prima facie evidence, on the plea of plene administravit:
    
      Suit was instituted, after which the administrator procured commissioners to be appointed by the county court, to settle with him ; they did so but in the settlement no mention was made of the kind or dignity of the debts paid. This settlement was relied upon as evidence to support the plea 
      plene administravit, before Powell, j. sitting alone.
    Provided the settlement were made prior to the commencement of the suit, otherwise, if after-but if it has been admitted, & verdict obtained by the administrator, a new trial will not be granted, it being a hard case.
    Verdict for defendant.
    Upon a rule for a new trial, Dickenson, for defendant opposed the new trial, upon two grounds.
    1st. The settlement was good prima facie evidence in such a case.
    2d. If it were not the settlement being in the usual form it was a hard case and no new trial ought to be granted, citing for the last point Bullers, N. P. 226.
   Per Curiam.

Powel j. Overton j. and [Humphreys j. having been employed did not sit.]

After the institution of suit, such settlement ought not to have been received, even as prima facie evidence that the monies were disbursed in the correct course of administration.

It would be evidence, that the aggregate sum disbursed. Before suit brought, such a settlement would be good prima facie, evidence, that the sums were disbursed aaccording to the course pointed out by law, but it cannot be afterwards, as the defendant then had notice of the demand and his settlement should have been prepared to meet it, by shewing how each item arose. In fact it were best in all cases to do this, but a general settlement may be evidence, where there is no notice of claims of a superior nature.

Upon the second ground however, we are of opinion, that no new trial ought to be granted, for it certainly would be a hard case on the defendant, who settled according to the common method of doing so, to pay this money out of his own pocket. There seems as much equity, that the plaintiff should lose as the defendant. 
      
      See 4 Hen & Mun. 57. 253, 428.