Case Name: Roger's Administratrix v. Chandler's Administratrix
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1811-01-10
Citations: 3 Munf. 65
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Roger’s Administratrix v. Chandler’s Administratrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 626–626

Head Matter:
*Roger’s Administratrix v. Chandler’s Administratrix.
Friday, Jan. 10, 1811.
Administrators — Plea ot “Fully Administered” — Verdict — Sufficiency. —upon issue joined on the plea of “fully administered,” a verdict finding-, in general terms, “the issue for the plaintiff, and that assets equal to the claim of the plaintiff came to the hands of the defendant," is uncertain and insufficient. It should set forth, with sufficient certainty, what portion of the assets, which came to the defendant’s hands, was unadministered at the time of suing out the plaintiff’s writ.
Same — Same—Same—Same.—As to what is sufficient certainty in a verdict of this nature, see Booth’s executors v. Armstrong, 2 Wash. 301.
Decedent’s Estate — Appraisement—Effect as Evidence. —An appraisement of a decedent’s estate, though not signed by the executor or administrator, and therefore not to be received as an inventory, is admissible as prima facie evidence of the value of the estate. — See Carr’s executor v. Anderson, 2 H. & M. 361, and Atwell’s administrators v. Milton, i H. & M. 562.
In an action of assumpsit, in the County Court of Fauquier, on behalf of Burton Whatham and Anne his wife, formerly Anne Chandler, administratrix of Stephen Chandler, deceased, against Joanna Rogers, administratrix of Robert Rogers, deceased, the defendant pleaded ‘ ‘non assumpsit by her intestate,” and plene administravit; to which pleas the plaintiffs replied generally. At the trial the. plaintiffs offered, as evidence to show the amount of assets, an appraisement of the estate of Robert Rogers, by certain persons appointed by the said county Court; which appraisement was made on oath, and admitted to record, as an “inventory and appraisement;” but was not signed by the administratrix. The Court rejected this evidence altogether; not permitting the jury to see it; to which opinion the plaintiffs excepted. Other evidence was offered which satisfied the jury, and a verdict was found in the following words; “we of the jury find the issues for the plaintiffs, and do find that assets equal to the claim of the plaintiffs came to the hands of the defendants; and we do find for the plaintiffs 401. 14s. lOd. damages.” Judgment was accordingly entered, which, upon an appeal, was affirmed by the District Court holden at Haymarket; whereupon the defendant again appealed to this Court.
See principal case cited in Gardner v. Vidal. 6 Rand. 108; foot-note to Booth v. Armstrong, 2 Wash. 301; foot-note to Sturdivant v. Raines, 1 Leigh 481.

Opinion:
Friday, January 10th, 1812, the President delivered the Court's opinion, that "the verdict of the Jury, on the second plea was defective, in this, that it did not find, with sufficient certainty, what portion of the assets, which came to the hands of the appellant, were unadministered by her, at the time of suing out the writ of the ap-pellees; *and that the appraisement offered in evidence by the appellees, though no evidence as an inventory of the estate of the appellant's intestate, (it not having been signed by her,) was prima facie evidence of the value thereof, and ought to have been left to the jury as -such."
The judgment was therefore reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded, with a direction that, on the execution thereof, the appraisement stated in the bill of exceptions be admitted as evidence for the purpose above mentioned.