Unknown County MsArchives Court.....Pool, William 1834
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines ddhaines@gmail.com December 8, 2005, 9:25 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases Adjudged In The Supreme Court Of Mississippi
Written: 1834
Recorded: 1818

HENDRICKS ADM’S. vs. WILLIAM SNODGRASS.

pages 86-87

If a person dies intestate, and administration is granted to A. B. who dies 
without having administered all the intestates goods, administration of the 
goods unadministered must be granted to another, for the first administrator 
cannot continue the trust reposed in him to another administrator.

It is error in the court below to permit a verdict to be rendered without an 
issue, or judgment by default and writ of inquiry.

The errors assigned in this case are—

First—That in the record and proceedings, and also in the giving judgment, 
there is manifest error in this—That the declaration and proceedings and the 
matters therein contained are not sufficient in law, for the plaintiff below 
to have and maintain his action against the defendant.

Secondly—There is error in this that by the record; it appears, that the suit 
at law was revived by sci. fa. against the present plaintiffs in error, as 
administrator of the administrators-of William Pool deceased, and not as 
administrator, de bonis non of said William Pool.

Thirdly—There was no issue made up in the court below, and Fourthly—It does 
not appear, that a judgment by default was taken, and a writ of enquiry 
thereupon awarded.

From an inspection of the record in this case, we find the facts stated in the 
assignment of errors to be true. Are they sufficient in law to reverse the 
judgment of the court below? By a reference to the authorities, I find it is 
said, that if a person dies intestate, and administration is granted to A. B. 
who dies without having administered all the intestate's goods, in this case, 
the ordinary must grant administration of the goods unadministered to another; 
for the first administrator cannot continue the trust reposed in him to his 
executor or administrator, because he has no interest, but what he derives 
from the act of the ordinary, 3d Bacon's Abr’gt English edition, title 
executors and administrators, page 19. Rolls. Abr’gt. 907. And the same 
principle seems to be recognized in other authorities.

It also appears from the record, that there was no issue made up in the court 
below, nor was there a judgment by default taken, or a writ of enquiry 
awarded, prerequisites which were necessary, in order to authorize the court 
to call to its assistance a jury to pass upon the rights of the parties. From 
this view of the case, it seems to me, the regular course for the plaintiff 
below would have been, to have revived the suit in the name of an 
administrator de bonis non, of William Pool deceased, before he could have 
regularly taken his judgment, as this was not done, the proceedings must be 
held as irregular, and as well upon this, as the latter ground taken by the 
plaintiffs in error, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and a 
venire facias de novo awarded.


Source: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, June 
Term, 1818, By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the 
Courier and Journal Office, 1834.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/unknown/court/pool52gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 3.7 Kb