Case Name: Allison Nelson v. Thomas Bagby
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 305
Docket Number: 
Parties: Allison Nelson v. Thomas Bagby.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 305–307

Head Matter:
Allison Nelson v. Thomas Bagby.
Where a party recovers judgment in another State, in the character of administrator, it becomes a debt of record in his favor, and, the legal right being in the plaintiff, he has the right of action, and describing himself “as administrator de bonis non" is only personal description.
Error from Bosque. The case was tried before Hon. NT. W. Battle, one of the district judges.
On the 4th of April, 1865, Thomas Bagby, “ as administrator of Willis H. Hughes,” recovered a judgment in the Superior Court of Eulton county, Georgia, against ¡Nelson for $1,110 25. This record was certified in accordance with the act of Congress of the 26th May, 1790. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3709, ¡Note 835; Paschal’s Annot. Const., Notes 218, 219, pp. 215-222.) Bagby sued Nelson upon this judgment, describing himself “as the administrator de bonis non of the estate of Willis H. Hughes, deceased.” Nelson put in an exception, denying the right of the plaintiff to sue. He also plead nil debet to the action.
The exception or “plea in abatement,” as it was wrongly called in the record, was overruled, and there were a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
The defendant prosecuted error.
Thomas Harrison, for plaintiff in error.
—That an administrator in another State has no right to sue here, by virtue of his letters of administration there, is clear. (Story on Conflict of Laws, 421, 422, 431, 432; Cobb v. Norwood, 11 Tex., 560; Clay v. Clay, 13 Tex., 200.)
The appellant sues in the capacity of administrator de bonis non by virtue of letters of administration granted to him in the State of Georgia.
This should determine the case in favor of the appellant; but it may be argued that the description of himself as administrator will be treated as surplusage, and that he has the right to sue in the courts of Texas for the recovery of this debt as due to himself personally, the original debt being merged in the judgment. That this is the rule of other States cannot be doubted; but Hemphill, C. J., in Clay v. Clay, 11 Tex., 560, doubts the propriety of its application to Texas, on account of our peculiar system of ad ministrations, and I rest the argument on this point on his observations thereon.
Ay cock £ Stewart recovered the judgment in the court below, but the Reporter finds no brief with the record.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—The petition of plaintiff below commences as follows: "Your petitioner, Thomas Bagby, as the administrator de bonis non of the estate of "Willis H. Hughes, deceased, a resident citizen of the State of Georgia, humbly complaining of Allison Kelson," &c., and it proceeds to set out, as the cause of action, a judgment recovered in the State of Georgia by Bagby, in that capacity, against Kelson and another. Kelson excepted to the petition, upon the ground that Bagby had no right to bring the suit in that capacity, which exception was overruled, and that is the error complained of.
The words "as administrator," &c., may he treated as surplusage, being an unnecessary description of the capacity in which he had recovered the judgment in Georgia. It was immaterial by what right he had recovered the judgment there; it stood in force in his name, and, although others may have an equitable interest in it as a right of action, having the legal title, he could sue in Ms own name upon it. (Gayle et al. v. Ennis et al., and authorities cited, 1 Tex., 184; Lipscomb et al. v. Ward et al., 2 Tex., 277; also, Ib., 412; Claiborne v. Yoeman, 15 Tex., 45.)
We are of opinion that the court did not err in sustaining the petition thus excepted to.
Judgment affirmed.