Case ID: h-mch_3/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1793.
    Levi Hollingsworth against Thomas Patten’s Administratrix.
    THIS was a scire facias issued from the county court of Baltimore, against Carolina Patten, administratrix of Thomas Patten, who was special bail of Charles Harris> upon a judgment obtained at August term, 1787, against the said Carolina, as administratrix of the said Thomas 
      Patten. Plea, flene administravit, and general replication. The case was removed from the county court by a writ of certiorari issued on the part of the defendant.
    . The following case was stated for the opinion of the Gourt, viz.
    At March term, 1785, a judgment was obtained for the plaintiff on a scire facias, against Thomas Patten, as specialbail of Charles Harris, for the sum of 158/. 185. &d. current money, and 446lb. tobacco, costs, in Baltimore county court; and in August term, 1787, the same was revived by scire facias against the defendant, as administratrix of the said Thomas Patten, and judgment when assets should come to her hands.
    It is admitted, that afterwards assets belonging to the intestate came to the defendant’s hands, to the amount of 154/. 155. 6d. current money.
    That the said Thomas Patten, in his lifetime, together with James Alcock and Mans el Alcock, on the 15 th day of June, 1785, executed a bond to the state of Maryland, of the penalty of 800/. current money, and bound themselves jointly and severally therein, conditioned that the said James Alcock should pay to the treasurer of the Western Shore for the time being, the sum of 400/. current money, on the 1st of January, 1790. The defendant hath paid in discharge of the bond due to the state, the above amount of the estate in her hands, to the treasurer aforesaid, after the judgment, when assets should come to her hands as aforesaid, was obtained, and before the bond due to the state was put in suit.
    The point submitted to the court is, whether the state, or the judgment, is to be first preferred in the 'payment of the intestate’s debts. If the state is to be preferred, then judgment of nonsuit to be entered; but if the judgment creditor is to be preferred before the state, then fat to be entered with costs, to bind the above sum of 154/. 15s. 6d. current money, assets in the hands of the defendant, and costs.
    
      S. Johnson, for the plaintiff.-
    Hollingsworth, for the defendant.
   The Court.

There can be no doubt that if a judgment is obtained against one in his lifetime, that his executor or administrator is obliged to satisfy such judgment in preference to a debt or specialty passed to the state after such judgment. 
      
       Vide State v. Rogers, May term, 1786.