Ham v. . Kornegay

85 N.C. 119

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 5, 1881
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ashe, J.

This suit is against the defendant W. F. Kor-negay, administrator of H. B. Ham and the other defendants, who are the sureties on the official bond of said IT. B. Ham as administrator of Haywood Ham, deceased, to recover a distributive share in the estate of the said Haywood, due to the plaintiff as one of the distributees as shown by the final account of said H. B. Ham, as administrator, returned to the probate court of the county of Wayne.

There have been so many adjudications in this state upon this point, that there is no proposition of law better settled than that where an administrator dies without having fully administered the estate of his intestate, an action will not lie by the next of kin for distribution against his administrator, but must be brought by an administrator de bonis non of the original intestate; and the reason is, there is no privity between the next of kin of the intestate and the personal repsesentative of the deceased administrator, but there is a privity between them and an administrator de bonis non. Latta v. Russ, 8 Jones, 111.

An administration is never complete so long as there are debts uncollected or assets, remaining in the hands of the administrator for distribution. It is the duty of an administrator to collect the assets, pay the expenses of his administration, discharge the debts of his intestate, and make a final distribution among the next of kin of his intestate. If au administrator dies before this is done, his administration is unfinished and an administrator de bonis non must be appointed to finish his administration, and so on ad in-finitum, until a final and completed distribution of the estate. Lansdell v. Winstead, 76 N. C., 366.

The facts in the case of State v. Johnson, 8 Ired., 331, were very similar to those in this case. There, one Baldwin died intestate, leaving a widow and brother who were entitled to his personal estate. Letters of administration were granted to one Bennett who gave bond, and after paying the debts of his intestate and the widow her third, had in his hands a considerable sum unadministered. Bennett died, and an action was brought on the administration bond by the brother, to recover his distributive share, and Judge Nash, who delivered the opinion of the court, said : “ The administrator alone is recognized as legally entitled to the assets, and to him must the creditors and next of kin look. If he dies before these ends are attained, an administrator de bonis non must be appointed, and to him the like rights, duties and responsibilities attach, and so on as often as the representative dies without closing his administration, and the action at law to collect the unadministered assets must be brought in the name of the administrator de bonis non, and not in that of the next of kin. See also State v. Britton, 11 Ired., 110; Taylor v. Brooks, 4 Dev. & Bat., 143; Goodman v. Goodman, 72 N. C., 508. In the case of Landsdell v. Winstead, supra, Judge Bynum said: “ The rule is inflexible that the next of kin cannot call for an account and distribution of an intestate’s estate without having an administrator before the court.”

There is no error. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.