Case Name: Amelia S. O'Keefe, Administratrix of William O'Keefe, and Others, v. William Rice, Ordinary
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-01
Citations: 1 Bail. Eq. 179
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amelia S. O’Keefe, Administratrix of William O’Keefe, and Others, v. William Rice, Ordinary.
Judges: Harper, J., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 179–181

Head Matter:
Amelia S. O’Keefe, Administratrix of William O’Keefe, and Others, v. William Rice, Ordinary.
A judgment at law against an administratrix, and her sureties, on her administration bond, will not be injoined, on the ground, that the estate of her intestate is insolvent, and that she had neglected making her defence at law, as well from her ignorance, and incapacity, for business, as from being misinformed, and misadvised, by her counsel.
If one having matter proper for a defence at law, neglect to make it, equity will not, in general, relieve against the judgment; nor are the mistakes, or negligence of counsel, in the conduct of a defence, a sufficient ground for relief.
This was a bill by an administratrix, and the sureties to her administration bond, to be relieved against a judgment at law upon the bond, recovered against them in an action instituted for the benefit of certain creditors of the estate, who had previously recovered judgments against the administratrix, for their respective demands. The bill stated, that as soon as the administration had been granted, the administratrix advertised for creditors, sold the effects of her intestate, by permission of the ordinary, and paid off all the demands of which she had notice : that, subsequently, she was notified of several other large demands against her intestate, which his estate was wholly insufficient to pay ; and that the affairs of the estate proving to be complicated, and feeling herself incompetent to manage them, being ignorant of business, she had delivered all the books, papers, and effects, of her intestate, then in her hands, to the ordinary, and requested permission to resign her administration, to which request the ordinary made no reply. That she was afterwards advised by a gentleman, whom she employed as counsel, that it was necessary that a receiver should be appointed, and an individual was selected for that purpose; and that she was subsequently informed by her counsel, that the individual selected had been appointed receiver : that in consequence of this information, she supposed that she was discharged from her administration, and, therefore, paid no attention, either to the actions brought against her, as administratrix, or to the action against herself and sureties, on her bond; and that her sureties, relying upon her, had also neglected the action against them, and judgment had, in consequence, been recovered against them, without any defence made. The bill prayed, that the judgment might be injoined, and the estate administered by the Court.
The defendant demurred generally, and the demurrer was argued at Union, before Thompson, Chancellor, who overruled the demurrer ; and after various subsequent proceedings, the cause was brought up on appeal, amongst other things, from his decree.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
The complainants' bill concedes, that the administratrix might have defended herself at law, as to all the matters stated. The pleas of plene administravit, and plene administravit prater, are exactly suited to such a defence. The only grounds upon which she seeks relief against the judgment at law, are, her own incapacity to manage the administration, and her neglecting to defend herself, in consequence of being misadvised, and misinformed, by her counsel.
If one having matters proper for a ; defence at law, neglect to make it, equity will not, in general, relieve against the judgment; nor are the mistakes, or negligence,' of counsel, in the conduct of a defence, a sufficient ground for relief. Ware v. Horwood, 14 Ves. 30, Stephenson v. Wilson, 2 Vern. 325.
Individual hardships may arise from enforcing these, or any other general rules, and, possibly, this case may furnish an instance ; but I have not been able to discover in it one circumstance, to take it out of their general operation. Every one who engages to perform a duty, undertakes for his capacity to perform it; and is alike responsible for the attention, and capacity, of all agents that he may find it necessary to employ in it. If chancery possessed the power of relieving, unerringly, against all our weaknesses, and delinquencies,'1 there would be no necessity for any other Court; but that would approach nearer to perfection than can be expected of any human institutions.
The. decree of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be reversed, and the complainants' bill dismissed, with costs; and it is so ordered, and decreed.
Harper, J., concurred.
Decree reversed.