From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. Cochran

Superior Court of North Carolina SALISBURY —
Sep 1, 1794
2 N.C. 104 (N.C. Super. 1794)

Opinion

September Term, 1794

Former administrators removed, and another appointed, but not made a party to this suit. The latter administrator will not be allowed to plead anything to this suit; and the former administrators cannot plead the repeal of their letters after the first term since their repeal. An account settled and signed by one administrator is binding upon all, and will bear interest from the time it was signed.

IN this case it was moved on the part of the defendant that he might be at liberty to plead puis darrein continuance; that a judgment had been obtained at the last term of this Court against the administrators of Cochran for a sum which was more than sufficient to exhaust all the assets. It was objected on the part of the plaintiff that this suit was brought against two persons who at that time were the administrators, but who long since had been removed by the county court of Cumberland, and the present administrator appointed in their stead, but that this suit was never against the latter administrator; and that this matter which is now sought to be pleaded had never been pleaded by the former administrators; and that as the present administrator was not any party to this suit, he could not plead the plea moved for.


This latter administrator cannot plead anything to the suit; and as to the former administrators, they cannot now plead the repeal of their letters of administration. They should have done so at the first term after the repeal; but several terms of this Court have intervened since the repeal, and they now come too late.

The plaintiff produced an account stated and signed by one of the former administrators, and insisted that by act of 1786, ch. 4, sec. 3, he was entitled to interest on the balance of the account from the time of its being signed; and to this, upon argument, the Court assented, saying the act of one shall bind both. And the plaintiff had a verdict accordingly.

Cited: Puffer v. Lucas, 101 N.C. 285.

(105)


Summaries of

Bailey v. Cochran

Superior Court of North Carolina SALISBURY —
Sep 1, 1794
2 N.C. 104 (N.C. Super. 1794)
Case details for

Bailey v. Cochran

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL BAILEY'S ADMINISTRATORS v. ROBERT COCHRAN'S ADMINISTRATOR

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina SALISBURY —

Date published: Sep 1, 1794

Citations

2 N.C. 104 (N.C. Super. 1794)

Citing Cases

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Brief Amici Curiae of Louise Doswald-Beck et al. at 32-33 n. 137. In this country, as Justice Scalia noted in…