Case Name: James McKnoll v. Jas. W. Wear's Admr.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1867-06-27
Citations: 1 Ky. Op. 447
Docket Number: 
Parties: James McKnoll v. Jas. W. Wear’s Admr.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 1
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
James McKnoll v. Jas. W. Wear’s Admr.
Personal Representative — Action Against — 'Account — Demand — Affidavit — Proof by Personal Representative Only — Successor — Voucher — Settlement.
It is the duty of a claimant, before commencing an action against a personal representative, to demand payment and accompany it with proof of the account as well as his own affidavit.
Same —■ V oucher.
The personal representative must be furnished with a proper voucher by which he can obtain credit in his settlement.
Same Proof by Personal Representative.
If proof of a claim can only be made by the personal representative and he refuses to make the affidavit, further proof is dispensed with.
Representative — Admission — Successor.
The mere admission of the correctness of a demand by a representative does not bind his successor in office so as to dispense with proof.
APPEAL EROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT.
June 27, 1867.

Opinion:
Opinion oe the Court by
Judge Hardin:
It is the duty of a claimant, before commencing an action against a personal representative on an account against the estate of a decedent, to demand its payment and accompany the demand with proof of the account, as well as with his own affidavit, one of the objects of the law being to furnish the personal representative with a proper voucher by which he can obtain credit in his settlement, by the payment when made. If proof of the claim can only be made by the personal representative, and he being required shall refuse to make the requisite affidavit, such refusal would dispense with the proof as a prerequisite to the commencement of the action (1 Met. 600). But it does not appear that the administratrix of Wear refused or was required to give an affidavit proving the justness of the claim, and we are clearly of the opinion that her mere admission of the correctness of the demand and willingness to pay it did not bind her successor in office to do so and accept an insufficient voucher by which he could not properly have been credited in his settlement.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the court properly dismissed the action.
And the judgment is affirmed.