Hertford County NcArchives Court.....Moore, Eli 1811 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Deb Haines ddhaines@gmail.com December 9, 2005, 2:02 am Source: North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6 Written: 1811 THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COURT v. MOORE'S ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS. From Hertford; July Term 1811 pages 21-22 1. An action may be maintained on an administration bond against the securities, before judgment has been obtained against the administrator. An action lies against the securities as soon as the administrator forfeits his bond, and a person be thereby "injured"; for 2. Laws 1791, ch. 10, direct that administration bonds shall be made payable to the chairman of the County Court and his successors in office, etc., and shall be put in suit in the name of the chairman at the instance of the person injured. THIS CASE was sent up to this Court from the Superior Court of Law for HERTF0RD, upon a rule obtained by the plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. The action was brought upon an administration bond, against Eli Moore, administrator of the estate of Willis Moore, deceased, and against his securities; and the question submitted to this Court was, Whether an action can be maintained on an administration bond, against the securities of the administrator, before a judgment has been obtained against the administrator himself. HALL, J. Laws 1715, ch. 48, direct that all administration bonds shall be made payable to the Governor, etc., who is directed to transfer or assign them "to any person injured," who may maintain an action thereon. No part of the act seems to require that the person injured should prove his injury by the record of a judgment obtained by him against the administrator. Although the administrator might have forfeited his bond, yet the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any thing of his securities, unless proof was made, according to the act, that he, the plaintiff, was a person injured. Laws, 1791, ch. 10, direct that, in future, administration bonds shall be made pay- ( 23 ) able to the chairman of the County Court and his successors in office, etc., and shall be put in suit in the name of the chairman, at the instance of the person injured. Under this act (and the bond in question was given since this act passed) no recovery can be had in the name of the chairman, unless, in addition to the proof that the administrator has forfeited his bond, proof is also made that the party for whose benefit the suit is brought has been injured by such forfeiture. It is contended, however, that this should be shown by obtaining judgment against the administrator: if so, it will follow that this judgment would be good evidence against and obligatory upon the securities, although it be a proceeding “inter alios acta"; and the defendants, if permitted, might have it in their power to show that the real paintiff had sustained no injury. Upon this point the Court gives no opinion; but they are of the opinion that the whole matter may be inquired into in this action; that the acts of Assembly are plain, and require no previous judgment to be recovered against the administrator to render his securities liable to the suit of the person injured. Let the rule for a new trial be made absolute. Cited: Strickland v. Murphy, 52 N. C., 244. North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6, Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Reported by A.D. Murphey, Annotated by Walter Clark. 1811 to 1813, Inclusive and at July Term, 1818. Reprinted by the State. E.M. Uzzell and Company, State printers and binders, 1910. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/hertford/court/moore31gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/ File size: 4.0 Kb