Gouldsmith v. Coleman

57 Ga. 425
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 57 Ga. 425 (Gouldsmith v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gouldsmith v. Coleman, 57 Ga. 425 (Ga. 1876).

Opinion

Bleckley, Judge.

Though the husband, when sole heir of the wife, may pay her debts and take her estate without administration, (Code, section 1761,) there is no such provision touching the wife. Section 1762 only makes her sole heir in case of his death without lineal descendants. It does not dispense with administration, or vary the general rule laid down in section 2483, that personalty vests in the administrator. Where there are no debts, the beneficiaries of an estate may distribute it among themselves, with or without administration, and, in equity at least, such conventional distribution will be maintained: 3 Kelly, 422; 13 Georgia Reports, 478; 14 Ibid., 367; 23 Ibid., 142; 29 Ibid., 585; 34 Ibid., 152; 36 Ibid., 184; 38 Ibid., 264; 55 Ibid., 359, 449. It seems, however,- that in an ordinary action at law, the administrator cannot be resisted by the fact of such distribution unless from lapse of time a due administration can be presumed: 6 Georgia Reports, 443; 7 Ibid., 559; 31 Ibid., 753. .Doubtless, if all the parties interested [427]*427were before the court, and if the defense were' presented by way of equitable plea, there would, at this day, be the same rule at law as in equity, and no more occasion to invoke a presumption, from lapse of time, in the one court than in the other. But without further legislation, the obstacles to bringing into a court of law parties other than those made such by the plaintiff or plaintiffs, would be insuperable. The plea of the defendant could not introduce new parties; and hence, in many cases, the strict legal rule would have to be administered. That rule must prevail in the present case. The only parties before the court are the widow as administratrix, and one of the creditors. What may or ought to be done with the property in the due course of administration, cannot be settled in this suit. The administratrix, by virtue of the letters granted to her by the prdinary, has the legal title, and that must prevail.

2. It seems well established by authority that the administratrix is not estopped by the prior illegal sale made by her as an individual: 3 Kelly, 263 ; 10 Georgia Reports, 361; 4 East, 441; 1 Adol. & Ellis, 49.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Shingler v. Shingler
192 S.E. 824 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Lufburrow v. Newton
129 S.E. 439 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Barbee v. Cable Piano Co.
97 S.E. 197 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Richards v. Edwardy
76 S.E. 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Hill v. Maffett
59 S.E. 325 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Jackson v. Green
51 S.E. 284 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Lawyers' Surety Co. v. Reinach
25 Misc. 150 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Wagnon v. Pease
30 S.E. 895 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Wilkins v. McGehee
13 S.E. 84 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)
Wiswell v. Wiswell
29 N.W. 166 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1886)
Sellars v. Cheney
70 Ga. 790 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Ga. 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gouldsmith-v-coleman-ga-1876.