E. S. Badger v. . Maria L. Jones and J. W. B. Watson

66 N.C. 305
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 66 N.C. 305 (E. S. Badger v. . Maria L. Jones and J. W. B. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
E. S. Badger v. . Maria L. Jones and J. W. B. Watson, 66 N.C. 305 (N.C. 1872).

Opinion

Dick, J.

The sale of the land to Watson was made by the heir at law within two years after the death of the intestate, and is void as against creditors and the administrator. Rev. Code, eh. 46, see 61. Acts 1868-’69, ch. 113, see 105.

The creditors were under no obligation to receive payment from the former administrator, as the currency of the country at that time was so greatly depreciated.

The rights of an administrator de bonis non relate back to the death of the intestate, and he is bound only by such lawful acts of the previous administrator, as were done in a due course of administration of the estate of the intestate. For any devastmit on the part of the previous administrator, the administrator de bonis non ought to recover the value of the goods and effects wasted, by an action on the bond of his *308 predecessor; but in our case an action would be unavailing, as all the parties to said bond are insolvent. 1 Williams’ Exrs., 824. Redfield on Wills, 91. Dulce, administrator v. Ferebee, 7 Jones, 10.

It is the duty of the plaintiff to complete the administration of the estate of his intestate, by collecting the un ad ministered assets, and applying them to the payment of debts. As there are no personal effects, he has proceeded properly to obtain a license to sell the real estate to make assets; and against him for this purpose, the conveyance of the land to Watson is void. As there is no equitable element in this matter, which under the old system would have required a resort to a Court of Equity for relief, the special proceedings before the clerk were right as coming within the rule laid down in Tate v. Powe, 64 N. C., 644.

There is no error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re: Harper
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2020
Brittain v. . Dickson
10 S.E. 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Smith v. . Brown
6 S.E. 667 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)
Grant v. . Reese
94 N.C. 720 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
Hawkins v. . Carpenter
88 N.C. 403 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
Wetherell and Wife v. . Gorman .
73 N.C. 380 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1875)
Donoho v. . Patterson
70 N.C. 649 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 N.C. 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-s-badger-v-maria-l-jones-and-j-w-b-watson-nc-1872.