Naylor v. Moody

2 Blackf. 247, 1829 Ind. LEXIS 22
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 21, 1829
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 2 Blackf. 247 (Naylor v. Moody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Naylor v. Moody, 2 Blackf. 247, 1829 Ind. LEXIS 22 (Ind. 1829).

Opinion

Scott, J.

Richard Moody and Polly Moody, claiming to he executor and executrix of the last will and testament of John Moody, deceased, filed in the office of the clerk of the Court of Probate of Clark county, certain papers purporting to he letters testamentary, granted to them by the county Court of Henry county in the state of Kentucky, accompanied with the last will and testament of the said John Moody, deceased; and, on the same day, sued out a scire facias to revive a judgment of the Clark Circuit Court, in favour of the said John Moody, deceased, against William H. Moore, and to have execution thereon against the said William H. Moore and Isaac Naylor his replevin-surety. This scire facias was returned served upon Naylor, and not found as to, Moore. Naylor appeared and filed three pleas; one of which was, that the letters testamentary, in the said writ mentioned, had -never been entered' of record in any Circuit Court within this state. To this plea the plaintiffs replied, that the said letters were entered of record as required by law. The matters in issue were submitted to the Court; and there was judgment for the plaintiffs, and execution awarded.

Our statute of January the 26th, 1824, sec. 28, provides, that letters testamentary and letters of administration, obtained in a sister state, shall have full force and effect within this state, and .that the executors and administrators mentioned therein may sustain suits thereon, and do all other acts thereby authorised, upon having the same entered of record in any Circuit Court ,in this state. The letters testamentary, in this case, were filed in the clerk’s office in vacation. It is not alleged that they were recorded; hut it is contended that the requisition of the statute is answered by the filing of the papers in the clerk’s office. We think the statute requires something [248]*248more. Filing and. entering of record are not synonymous: they are no where so used. These phrases frequently occur in our statutes; and they always convey distinct ideas. Filing, originally, signified placing papers in order on a thread or wire for safe keeping. In this country, and at this day, it means, agreeably to our practice, depositing them in due order in the proper office. Entering of record uniformly means writing. It appears clearly, by the manner in which the words are used in our statutes, that the legislature has recognized this distinction. If this view of the case be correct, the plaintiffs below, at the time they sued out the scire facias, had not taken the steps necessary to authorise them to sustain a suit in their representative capacity. They should, instead of filing their papers in the probate office, have had them recorded with the proceedings of the Circuit Court, subject to the inspection and control of that Court, in case of any alleged defect or insufficiency. Whether the plaintiffs had, or had not, entitled themselves to sue as executors was a point' directly before the Court on the issue; and the judgment should have been for the defendant

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

Related

Edwin Pratt's Sons' Co. v. Schafer
7 N.E.2d 901 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1937)
Dawson v. Phillips
88 S.E. 456 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
State ex rel. Padgett v. Foulkes
94 Ind. 493 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Ford v. Brooks
35 La. Ann. 151 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1883)
Miller v. O'Reilly
84 Ind. 168 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Pitts v. Melser
72 Ind. 469 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1880)
Rapp v. Matthias
35 Ind. 332 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Lucas v. Tucker
17 Ind. 41 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)
Harrison v. Mahorner
14 Ala. 829 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Blackf. 247, 1829 Ind. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naylor-v-moody-ind-1829.