From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Lane

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1802
3 N.C. 159 (N.C. Super. 1802)

Opinion

(Spring Riding, 1802.)

1. An administrator, on the plea of plene administravit, is bound to prove payment of the debts, but not that they were due.

2. Notice of a bond, before letters of administration taken out, is sufficient to prevent the payment of simple contract debts; notice need not be by suit.

An ex parte proving of a debt before a magistrate is of no avail.

THESE points were resolved by JOHNSTON, J.: First, the administrator, on the plea of plene administravit, need not prove each debt to be due that he paid off; he may prove the payment and the plaintiff may show, if he can, that the debt was not due. Secondly, if a bond be shown to the administrator before letters taken out, and he afterwards pays simple contract debts, he shall not be allowed them; notice of the bond debt need not be by suit; a notice by showing the bond is enough. Thirdly, the practice of proving a simple contract before a justice of the peace is of no use; it is ex parte, and if the debt be not due, that will not execuse [excuse] the administrator; if it be due, the want of such proof will not make the payment void.


NOTE. — On the second point, see Delamothe v. Lanier, 4 N.C. 296.


Summaries of

Brown v. Lane

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1802
3 N.C. 159 (N.C. Super. 1802)
Case details for

Brown v. Lane

Case Details

Full title:BROWN v. LANE, ADMINISTRATOR OF LANE

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1802

Citations

3 N.C. 159 (N.C. Super. 1802)

Citing Cases

Delamothe v. Lane

We are therefore of opinion that the evidence of payment of inferior debts was properly received in this…