Case Name: SARAH LOLLEY, negro vs. EZEKIEL NEEDHAM'S Ex'rs.
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1832
Citations: 1 Harr. 86
Docket Number: 
Parties: SARAH LOLLEY, negro vs. EZEKIEL NEEDHAM’S Ex’rs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 86–87

Head Matter:
SARAH LOLLEY, negro vs. EZEKIEL NEEDHAM’S Ex’rs.
A probate must disclose all the credits within the plff’s. knowledge.
It is not sufficient to make a general reference to the defendant’s books for credits.
Case for work and labor, &e. Common counts. Pleas, non-assumpsit; payment, and act of limitations.
Plff. proved the service, and admitted that she had at different times received sundry sums of money from deft’s, testator; at one time $50 00 at another $10, at another $5, &c.
She presented the following probate:
Doct. Ez. Needham
To Sarah Lolley, Dr.
To 23 years and 4 months services from 1st October,
1803, to 1st February, 1829, as house-keeper, at $3
per month. ------- $840 00
The above named Sarah Lolley maketh oath that nothing has been paid or delivered toward satisfaction of her above stated debt, other than such payment as may have been made by the said Ezekiel Needham in his lifetime, for the amount whereof she refers to the books of the said deceased, not knowing the amount herself; and that the sum demanded, after deducting such payments, is justly and truly due. (Signed) Sarah Lolley.
Sworn and subscribed before ?
Wm. A. Budd, J. P. 5
Clayton for deft’s.
moved a nonsuit, for want of sufficient probate.

Opinion:
Per Cur.
The probate is not sufficient. A probate is for the security of the estate, and the law requires that the person making it should disclose all credits within his knowledge. A general reference to the deft's, books without this, might in many cases evade the check which the law designed to impose upon all claims made upon a deceased person's estate. The demand here is of $840, with a general reference to the deft's, books for credits, without specifying a single credit, though it is proved that the plff. has on other occasions, admitted the receipt of specific sums, as being within her recollection and knowledge.
Ridgely for plff.
Clayton and Bates for defts.
Judgment of nonsuit.