Case Name: Eno v. Cornish
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1787-09
Citations: 1 Kirby 296
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eno v. Cornish.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Eno v. Cornish.
EeeoR from tbe judgment of a justice of tbe peace. Cornisb brought bis action against tbe plaintiff in error (sbe being executrix of tbe last will and testament of Isaac Eno, deceased) declaring — “ That be was a collector of state taxes, levied on tbe list of tbe polls and ratable estate of tbe inhabitants of tbe town of Symsbury, in tbe year 1761, and received from tbe treasurer of tbe state of Connecticut, a legal warrant, authorizing him to collect of tbe several inhabitants of said town, their proportion of said tax; and that said Isaac Eno was then living, and bis proportion of said tax was ascertained in tbe bills delivered to tbe plaintiff, to be £18 8s. lawful money, which was payable by tbe last day of December, 1762; and that said Isaac died, without paying any part of said rate, though tbe plaintiff bad several times demanded payment, and forbore to distrain, at tbe request of said Isaac; whereupon be became indebted to tbe plaintiff for said rate, tbe interest thereof, and tbe plaintiff’s fees, amounting to, etc.— and that tbe defendant (said Isaac’s executrix) bad never paid tbe same, though often demanded; whereupon an action bath accrued,” etc.
Tbe defendant pleaded a settlement and discharge, in tbe lifetime of tbe deceased; which was traversed, and issue joined.
Tbe judgment was entered up in these words:— “ That after bearing tbe witnesses and pleadings in this case, tbe court is of opinion, that tbe defendant’s plea in bar is insufficient; and judgment is given, that tbe plaintiff shall recover of tbe deféndant, forty shillings damages, and cost,” etc.
Three exceptions were taken, to this judgment:
1. That the judgment contains no answer to the issue, but is upon a point foreign to the controversy.
2. That the judgment and execution is against the defendant personally, • when it should have been against her, as executrix, and the goods and estate of the testator in her hands.
3. That upon the face of the declaration it is manifest, that the defendant could not be liable in debt for said taxes, which are more than twenty years old, and the law will presume have been paid.
Judgment of the justice reversed.

Opinion:
By the Court.
(ShebMajs, J., absent.) —• If an action is necessary, or doth lie against the administrator or executor, upon a tax warrant, for taxes due from the deceased, he can only be liable in that capacity; whereas, in this¡ case, judgment was rendered against the executrix, in her private capacity.