Case Name: Brizendine's Adm'x v. Tisdale
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1831-02
Citations: 5 Leigh 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brizendine’s Adm’x v. Tisdale.
Judges: (Absent Green, J.)
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 29–29

Head Matter:
Brizendine’s Adm’x v. Tisdale.
February, 1831,
Richmond.
(Absent Green, J.)
Administrators — Plea of Fully Administered — Verdict— Judgment.* — Debt on bond against administratrix ; plea, fully administered: verdict, in general terms, that defendant has not fully administered ; and judgment thereupon for the debt demanded, to be levied de bonis testatoris : Herd, the verdict is insufficient to warrant the judgment.
Debt by Tisdale against R. Brizendine administratrix of J. Brizendine, on a bond of her intestate for ^519. brought in the circuit court of Amelia. Pleas, Payment by defendant’s intestate — Debts of superiour dignity' — and Rully administered ; on which issues were made up. Upon the trial, the jury found a verdict in these words: “We of the jury find, that the defendant’s intestate has not paid the debt in the declaration mentioned, and that there are no debts of superiour dignity due from the intestate, and that the defendant has not fully administered all the assets which came tO' her hands belonging to her intestate; and therefore, we find for the plaintiff the debt in the declaration &c.” Whereupon, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the debt demanded, to be levied de bonis testatoris. The defendant applied by petition to this court, fora supersedeas to the judgment; which was allowed.
Copland, for the plaintiff in error,
objected that the verdict was insufficient to warrant the judgment, since it did not find the amount of the assets that came to the hands of the administratrix, or that assets, unadministered sufficient to pay the debt, came to her hands.
See monographic note on “Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6; monographic note on “Debt, The Action of” appended to Davis v. Mead, 13 Gratt. 118.

Opinion:
The court, referring to the cases of Sturdivant's adm'r v. Raines's ex'or, 1 Leigh 481, and Gardner's adm'r v. Vidal, 6 Rand. 106, reversed the judgment, and ordered a venire de novo.