Case Name: Hays's Executor and Others v. Hays and Others
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1817-02-11
Citations: 5 Munf. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Hays’s Executor and Others v. Hays and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 489–490

Head Matter:
*Hays’s Executor and Others v. Hays and Others.
Decided, Feb. 11th, 1817.
i. Chancery Practice — Salt, iby Children of Deceased! Residuary Legates. — A Bill in Equity ill behalf of persons, suing- as children of a deceased residuary legatee for his share of the residuum, can not he sustained: it should appear that the plaintiffs are the Administrators, or other legal representatives, of such legatee.
The Appellees, suing' as children of David Hays, who was one of the residuary legatees of Andrew Hays, deceased, filed their Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, against Andrew Hays, Executor of John Hays, who was the acting Executor, and Michael Hays, John Hays, Campbell Hays and James Hays, the other Legatees, of the said Andrew Hays, deceased; for the purpose of recovering the share to which David Hays, their father, was entitled. It appeared from the Bill, that David Hays had died intestate, and that no person had administered upon his estate. A decree being made in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants appealed to this Court.
The principal caseiscitedin Wernicky. M’Murdo, B Rand. 109; Graff v. Castleman, 5 Rand. 199.

Opinion:
February 11th, 1817,
JUDGE ROANE
pronounced the Court's opinion.
The Court is of opinion, that, as the Ap-pellees have not sued as the legal representatives of David Hays, but only in the character of his children, the Decree ought to be reversed with costs, and the Bill dismissed, upon the principle, upon which the Court went, in the case of Nelson Administrator of Walker v. Evans. "
Note. The case of Nelson Administrator of Walker v. Evans, was decided November 2d, 1816, and is similar to this; but, in the Order Book, the reason for reversing the Decree, and dismissing the Bill in that case, is not stated. The Reporter thinks that the Court's opinion, delivered by the President, did not assign any reason for the decision: if it did, he has not been furnished with it.— Note in Original Edition.