Case Name: Leighten W. Hazelhurst, plaintiff in error, vs. John H. & James D. Morrison, defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1873-01
Citations: 48 Ga. 397
Docket Number: 
Parties: Leighten W. Hazelhurst, plaintiff in error, vs. John H. & James D. Morrison, defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
Leighten W. Hazelhurst, plaintiff in error, vs. John H. & James D. Morrison, defendants in error.
(Atlanta,
January Term, 1873.)
Executors and Administrators — Pleading — Title — Evidence.—
When plaintiffs sue in their representative capacity, on a note due to their testator or intestate, and there is no plea in abatement filed at the first term of the Court, the plaintiffs are not required at the trial term to prove that they have been legally appointed executors •or administrators. Aliter, if their letters testamentary or of administration constituted a part of their title to the property sued for. (R.)
Executors and administrators. Pleading. Title. Evidence. Before Judge Sessions. Wayne Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1872.
For the facts of this case, see the decision.
Smith & Mershon, by Tester & Thomson, for plaintiff in error.
J. S. Wiggings, by Z. D. Harrison, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Warner, Chief Justice.
The plaintiffs, as executors of George Morrison, deceased, brought an action against the defendant on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff's testator or order, for the sum of $1,136 75. The defendant filed no plea at the first term of the Court denying that the plaintiffs were executors, or that they were not entitled to maintain ' *their action against him in that capacity. When plaintiffs sue in their representative capacity on a note due to their testator or intestate, and there is no plea in abatement filed at the first term of the Court by the defendant, the plaintiffs are not required at the trial term of the Court to prove that they had been legally appointed executors or administrators. It would be otherwise if the letters testamentary or of administration constituted a part of the plaintiff's title to the property sued for: Macon & Western Railroad Company vs. Davis, 18 Georgia Reports, 679.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.