Case Name: JONES, Executor of BROKAW against DECKER'S Executor
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1807-05
Citations: 2 N.J.L. 232
Docket Number: 
Parties: JONES, Executor of BROKAW against DECKER’S Executor.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
JONES, Executor of BROKAW against DECKER’S Executor.
EEEOE EEOM SUSSEX PLEAS.
Pleading general issue in debt on bond, admits plaintiff’s probate.
This was a writ of error from the Common Pleas of Sussex. The plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff below, declared agáinst the defendant below, on two bonds given by the defendant’s testator, to which the defendant had pleaded non est factwn, and gave notice to the plaintiff’s attorney to produce on the trial of the cause, the probate of the will of the plaintiff’s testator. [169] On the trial of [*] the cause, the execution of the bonds was admitted, when the defendant called on the plaintiff to produce the probate of the will of his testator — whereupon the plaintiff produced the probate of the will, made in the State of Yew York. On the insufficiency of this probate, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that a probate, made out of the State of Yew Jersey, was wholly insufficient to enable an executor to maintain an action in the courts of this State; and the Court of Common Pleas being of that opinion, nonsuited the plaintiff. Whereupon the plaintiff took a bill of exception, and brought the present writ, and assigned this nonsuit as error.
Mr. I. H. Williamson, for plaintiff,
moved for the reversal of the judgment of the Common Pleas; and cited the following authorities in his favor: 2 Mallory’s Entries, 355; 2 Dal. Rep. 100; 1 Salk, 286; Lord Raym. 824.

Opinion:
By the Court.
— The judgment of the Common Pleas must be reversed. The defendant admitted by his plea, the authority of the plaintiff to maintain an action in the relation in which he sued. The sufficiency of the probate could not, under the pleadings in the cause, be questioned on the trial. Judgment reversed and a venire de novo awarded.
The court gave no opinion on the question intended to be raised by the defendant below, as to the validity of probates made out of the State.
Cited ih Gulich Y.Van Arsdalen % Penn. 74S; Voorhees v.Woodhull.