Patillo v. Barksdale

22 Ga. 356
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 15, 1857
DocketNo. 2
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 Ga. 356 (Patillo v. Barksdale) 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
Patillo v. Barksdale, 22 Ga. 356 (Ga. 1857).

Opinion

[358]*358 By the Court.

Bunking, J.

delivering the opinion.

'Cali the Courts of Ordinary of this State, grant letters of administration on the estate of a man, who, at the time of his death, was a citizen of another State, and who had no property of any sort within this State ?

We think'not

It seems that no Ecclesiastical Court in England, had power to grant administration on the estate of a person, unless that person left bona notabilia within the province over which that Court had jurisdiction. 1. Williams, Ex’ors 160.

The largest grant of power given to our Courts of Ordinary, is one to do all such “matters and things as appertain, or relate to the estates of deceased persons.” Pr. Dig. 239; Id. 231.

It would seem, therefore, that if there are no “ estates,” there can be no jurisdiction.

The duty of an administrator is, to “well and truly administer on all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits” (of the dead man,) “and pay all his just debts, as far as the same will extend.” Pr. Dig. 227.

If, therefore, the dead man has no property of any sort, within the State, what duties can there be for an administrator to perform ? In other words, what need can there be for an administration ?

In this case, the object of obtaining letters of administration' was to provide a way, not for asserting or establishing a right in favor of the dead man’s representative, but for asserting and establishing a right against that representative.

We do not know of any law which gave the Ordinary the power to grant letters of administration in such a case as this is: and therefore, we think, that the judgment of the Court below ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Bush v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
52 S.E.2d 515 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Neal v. Boykin
64 S.E. 480 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Ga. 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patillo-v-barksdale-ga-1857.