Case Name: James M'Beth, Survivor of John Paisly & Co., v. Savage Smith, Administrator de bonis non of William Goddard
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1815-01
Citations: 3 Brev. 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: James M’Beth, Survivor of John Paisly & Co., v. Savage Smith, Administrator de bonis non of William Goddard.
Judges: Colcock, Bkevakd, and Gkimke, Js.} concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
JAN., 1815.
James M’Beth, Survivor of John Paisly & Co., v. Savage Smith, Administrator de bonis non of William Goddard.
An action will not lie against an administrator de bonis non, for a debt contracted by the administrator.
Assumpsit. John Paisly and James M’Beth kept a store at Black-Mingo, during which time the former, who was the only co-partner, residing there, entered in the co-partnership book an ac. count on which this action was founded. Before the whole account was entered, John Paisly married the widow of William Goddard, and took letters of administration on the estate. The account was raised in the name of the estate, many items of which were conceded by the plaintiff’s counsel as not proper for an estate. No credits were entered in the books of the firm, nor did Paisly render any account of this transaction to the ordinary. In 1800, the de fendant, who was one of Paisiy’s securities to the ordinary, peti» tioned to be released, upon which the administration was revoked, anc* granted lo defendant. Paisly died shortly after; and this action was brought by the survivor, to charge the estate in the hands 0f *¡le administrator de bonis non, with a debt thus contracted by Mrs. Goddard and Paisly ; and a verdict was found for him» De» fendant moved in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial.

Opinion:
Smith, J.
This court has in one or two instances decided-this principle ' before, that an administrator cannot contract a debt to bind the estate of his intestate. It has been settled, and on the fairest principle in the world, that the estate of the intestate can only be liable for the contracts of the intestate himself; but it would be a paradox, not to be solved by legal rules, to say that an administrator-should contract a debt himself, and then he should be sued, and this .debt recovered as one contracted by his intestate. But it appears still more illegal that the administrator should contract a debt himself, for the estate of his intestate, and then make the ad» ministrator de bonis non liable in an action, and recover it against him as a debt contracted by his intestate, when the whole transaction was long after the intestate was in his grave. This is precisely the case in the present action. I would not pretend to say that an administrator should in no case be allowed to contract debts that, should bind the estate of his intestate ; but if he does so, and in many instances it is necessary he should do so, he alone will be liable to the creditor; and his only indemnity is by retaining sos much from the profits of the estate, or by applying to the ordinary, who has the power to allow him compensation for any fair accounts contracted for the benefit of the estate. I am, therefore, of opinion that the rule should be granted.
Colcock, Bkevakd, and Gkimke, Js.} concurred.