Karrick v. Pratt's Executors

Supreme Court of Iowa

Karrick v. Pratt's Executors

4 Greene 144

DecidedJune 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Greene 144 (Karrick v. Pratt's Executors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karrick v. Pratt's Executors, 4 Greene 144 (iowa 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Greene, J.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in 1851, by Simon A. Greagnon and'R. Pratt, executors, &c., of E. F.' Pratt, against Geo. Qrd [145]*145Karri ck, on a promissory note. To the declaration, the defendant pleaded specially, that the plaintiffs ought not to have or maintain their action, for the reason, that at the time the action was commenced, no letters testamentary had been granted to, or taken by the plaintiffs ; and that no copy of letters or bond had been filed, as- required by statute, &c. The replication admitted the plea, but averred that letters and a bond had b.een subsequently filed, &c. Demurrer to-the replication overruled, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs.

B. M. Samuels, for appellant. Geo. L. Nightingale, D. S. Wilson, and P. Smith, fo r appellees.

It is urged that the demurrer should have been sustained, as foreign executors, or administrators are required by statute, before entering upon the discharge of their duty, to make out a good and suificient bond, and to file with the judge of probate their letters testamentary, or an attested copy thereof. Laws of 1845, 49, 50, §§ 1, 2. These were necessary qualifications before they were authorized to commence and prosecute suits in this state. As a general rule, a foreign administrator, or executor cannot maintain an action without the authority of a court of probate in the state where the debtor resides. Story’s Con. of Laws, §§ 512, 513; Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass., 513; 11 ib., 313; 2 New Hamp., 292; 4 Kan., 158.

As this rule is modified by our statute, it is claimed that it is not applicable to this state. But surely the statute to which we have referred is applicable, and should be observed. We are of the opinion that the executors had no authority to commence this suit, without having first complied with the directions of the statute; and that the court below erred in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

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

Opinion by

Greene, J.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in 1851, by Simon A. Greagnon and'R. Pratt, executors, &c., of E. F.' Pratt, against Geo. Qrd [145]*145Karri ck, on a promissory note. To the declaration, the defendant pleaded specially, that the plaintiffs ought not to have or maintain their action, for the reason, that at the time the action was commenced, no letters testamentary had been granted to, or taken by the plaintiffs ; and that no copy of letters or bond had been filed, as- required by statute, &c. The replication admitted the plea, but averred that letters and a bond had b.een subsequently filed, &c. Demurrer to-the replication overruled, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs.

B. M. Samuels, for appellant. Geo. L. Nightingale, D. S. Wilson, and P. Smith, fo r appellees.

It is urged that the demurrer should have been sustained, as foreign executors, or administrators are required by statute, before entering upon the discharge of their duty, to make out a good and suificient bond, and to file with the judge of probate their letters testamentary, or an attested copy thereof. Laws of 1845, 49, 50, §§ 1, 2. These were necessary qualifications before they were authorized to commence and prosecute suits in this state. As a general rule, a foreign administrator, or executor cannot maintain an action without the authority of a court of probate in the state where the debtor resides. Story’s Con. of Laws, §§ 512, 513; Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass., 513; 11 ib., 313; 2 New Hamp., 292; 4 Kan., 158.

As this rule is modified by our statute, it is claimed that it is not applicable to this state. But surely the statute to which we have referred is applicable, and should be observed. We are of the opinion that the executors had no authority to commence this suit, without having first complied with the directions of the statute; and that the court below erred in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Greene 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karrick-v-pratts-executors-iowa-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack