Case ID: scl_2/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Judges,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Ordinary of Kershaw District against William Bracey and J. Nourdin.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1804.
    In an action of debt on an administration bond, a party entitled to a distributive share of the deceased’s estate, cannot recover more than his proportion of damages for any misconduct in an administrator, in not returning a true and just inventory.
    The party who is entitled to such share, is not a com-petentwitness to prove those damages.
    DEBT on an administration bond. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial.
    In this case, there was a plea of performance generally. To this plea there was a replication that the administrator had not made a just and true inventory of the deceased’s estate, as by law he was bound to do. To this replication there was a rejoinder, that he had never been called upon, or required to render in an account, till a day therein mentioned, (8th jMarch-, 1800,) and that he had then rendered in a just and true inventory; and plaintiff surrejoined, and defendant demurred to it, which demurrer was overruled ; whereupon the cause went to the jury, who gave the plaintiff (who was entitled to one-sixth of the deceased’s estate) his full distributive share, and the whole amount of the value of that part of the estate which had not been included in the inventory, by way of damages; and to prove the value of such part of the estate as was not included in the inventory, the real plaintiff, who was a minor under the age of 21 years, and his guardian, were permitted to be sworn as witnesses.
    This, thereforé, was a motion for a new trial, on two grounds. 1st. Because the jury had given more than the plaintiff was entitled to, on any principle of law and justice; and, 2dly. That that verdict was obtained on improper testimony.
   The Judges,

on both grounds, had no hesitation in ordering a new trial, as the plaintiff for whose account the suit had been commenced in the name of the Ordinary, on the administration bond, could not, by any possibility, be entitled to more than his one-sixth part of the amount of the deceased’s estate, which had not been included in the inventory, in addition to his distributive share of the estate ; and that the party entitled to such share, should not have been sworn to give evidence himself of the amount or value thereof.

Rule for new trial made absolute.

All the Judges present.