Case Name: Reynold's Executors v. Andrew Torrance
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1806-04
Citations: 2 Brev. 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: Reynold’s Executors v. Andrew Torrance.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 59–62

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1806.
Reynold’s Executors v. Andrew Torrance.
In an action by an executor, qua such, it is not necessary to produce the letters testamentary, in evidence, to support the action, unless it be made necessary by pleading, ne. unques executor, &c.
Letters testamentary, granted in another State, will not be sufficient to entitle the executor to the administration of the assets in this State, without proving the will, and taking out fresh letters testamentary in this State.
If plaintiff sues as executor, and makes profert of his letters testamentary, the defendant, if he means to put m issue the right of the plaintiff to sue in the character of executor, and compel him to produce his original letters testamentary, must plead a denial of the fact that he is executor.
Action of debt, tried in Union district, before Bay, J. Plea, non est factum. The defendant’s counsel required the production of the plaintiffs’ letters testamentary, whereupon, the plaintiff pro duced a certificate of the cleik of a County Court in Virginia, stating, that the plaintiff had qualified as executor of Reynolds, a"d had proved the will, it was then objected by the defendant, that this probate of the will in Virginia, did not entitle the plaintiff t0 maintain the action. This objection was overruled. But, as the certificate was not properly sealed, or attested, the j.idge ordered the cause to be continued, contrary to the desire of the defendant, who demanded a nonsuit.
The motion in this court, was to reverse the order of the District Court, and for leave to enter up a nonsuit.
Nott, for the defendant,
cited Toller’s Law of Executors, 40, 47. In England, if testator leaves goods in two different diocesses, the will must be proved in each, before the Bishop of each, or before the Archbishop, in his Prerogative Court. 2 H. Bl. Rep. Nutt, Executor, v. Brevvton. Will proved by administrator, cum testamento annexe, in England, although executors had qualified, and were alive, in America. The executor in another State, as an executor in a foreign country, may, by his agent, collect the effects in th:s State, and misapply the assets to the prejudice of creditors, with impunity, and without control. Good policy requires, that in every State, where the effects lie, the executor, or administor, should make probate of the will, and be accountable to the Ordinary, within the jurisdiction where the effects were at the testator’s death.
Goodwin, and Farrow, on the other side,
contended that the doctrine cited from the English authorities did not apply. The Courts of Ordinary in this country, are not of ecclesiastical, but of civil jurisdiction. The probate of a will in a court of competent jurisdiction is a judicial proceeding of record, and within the meaning of the constitution and laws of the United States. (See the case of Hammond and Hathaway v. Smith, 1 vol. p. 110.) Constitution U. S. art. sec. 4. Laws U. S. 1 vol. p. 15. As to the production of letters testamentary at all, it was not necessary in this case; they were not in issue. Cited 2 Dali. 100. 1 Hayw. 166.

Opinion:
28th April, 1806.
Brevard, J.
delivered the opinion of the ma. jority of the court, (viz. Waties, Brevard, and Wilds.) In this action, the plaintiff declared as executor of Reynolds, on a bond given to his testator. Defendant pleaded that it was not his deed, and thereupon issue was joined to the country. The point in dispute, therefore, upou this record, was not, whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue the bond, and maintain the action thereoo, as executor, but whether the deed declared on was the deed of the defendant, or not. It is usual, in declaring as executor, to make a profert of the letters testameutuiy, to the end that the defendant may, if he chooses, demand oyet thereof, and satisfy himself with respect to the plaintiff's right to sue as executor, and afford him an opportunity of taking advantage of any impropriety in the granting of them, or of any other defect to which they may be liable. Where the plaintiff declares as executor, and names himself as such, which he" must do, unless he sues in his own right* the defendant may plead that the plaintiff never was executor, and so put that fact in issue. Ne xmques executor is a good plea in abatement. 5 Com. Dig. 576. Defendant may plead to an action against him, as executor, ne ungues executor, in bar. 5 Com. 578. But if the defendant omits to plead that lite plaintiff never was executor, and pleads over to the action, he admits the right of the plaintiff to sue in the character he assumes, and is afterwards estopped to deny that he is executor. Where the plaintiff sues in his own right, as for a conversion of his testator's property after the testator's death, there, he must, in order to make out his title to the property, produce his letters testamentary, because, in that case, he does not sue as executor, hut in his own right, and this evidence is necessary to shew his right. See 2 Dali. 108, S. P.
In the present case, the opinion of the court is, that the defendant had no right to demand the letters testamentary, upon the trial of the issue joined between the parties ; and though the plaintiff did produce them, yet this being foreign to the issue, made no difference in the case ; and whether the letters were in due form, or not, was immaterial. It is not necessary to give any opinion on the question, whether letters testamentary, granted in one State, will entitle an executor to act in another State, without proving the will, and obtaining other letters testamentary in that other State.
The opinion of the court, however, upon that point is, that the authority derived from the probate of a will and letters testamentary in another of the United States, will not extend to this, so as to empower.the executor to meddle with the effects, or credits, of the deceased within this State. We do not think that this rule is repugnant to the constitution and law of the United Slates respecting the credit to be given to records and judicial proceedings, and tho au. thenticatiou of them, going from one State into another. An authen. tie'ated copy of the will and probate co.ming from another State, may be received in this, as sufficient evidence of suclt will and probate; but will not authorize the executor, acting by virtue of letters granted in another State, to meddle with property in this State, without first applying for and obtaining letters testamentary in this State; because the ordinaries, within their several precincts, are bound to see to the due application of the assets of persons decease(jj ant] ought to have a coerscing power over those intrusted with the administration of such assets, for the safety and interest of creditors and others within the State.
Note. Bay, J., ought to have let defendant have verdict. See 3 Cr,anch's Reports, Dixon's executors v, 'Ramsay's executors, S. P. ruled.
Marshall, C. J. If plainliff maintains his suit by virtue of his letters testa, mentaiy, he can only sue in courts to which the power of those letters extend. Suits for rights of personal property are governed by the laws of the country where brought.
Where plaintiff declared as administrator, without concluding et hie profort curia Lett Adminstr. it was held a defect of form, against which advantage should not be taken on a general demurrer. See 2 Saund. 402. 3 Keb. 61.
Triszevant, J.,
gave the opinion of himself and Grimke, J. The parties chose to put the fact in issue as to the validity of the letters testamentary ; and although there was no such issue on the récord, yet, by agreement between the parties, they placed .the cause on that ground, and this court is bound to decide on that ground. Suppose A. indicted for murdering B. and confesses the fact, and before conviction B. comes into court in full life: would not A. be acquitted ? Here defendant lias admitted that plaintiff is exeo.utor of Reynolds; and plaintiff lias shewn that he is not. What shall the court do'? Allow plaintiff to pursue his action as executor when it is evident that he is not so ? Agreed in the other point as to letters from any other State, being sufficient here.
Motion overruled.