Shown's Exr's v. Barr

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Shown's Exr's v. Barr

33 N.C. 296

DecidedAugust 5, 1850

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.C. 296 (Shown's Exr's v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shown's Exr's v. Barr, 33 N.C. 296 (N.C. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffht, 0. J.

The Court considers the decision on both points to be correct. That the plaintiff is not executor or administrator is a plea in bar. 3 Chit. Pl. 942. Stokes v. Bate, 5 B. & C. 491. Consequently, under the statute, the defendant was entitled to plead it with any other bar. Without noticing any objection to the judicial proceedings in Tennessee, as constituting letters testamentary, had the transcript been received in evidence, it is sufficient to say, that the objection, made at the trial,, to its reception, is decisive. The Act of Congress requires, that the presiding magistrate of the Court shall certify, that the person, who attests the transcript, is the clerk of the Court, and that “the attestation is in due form instead of which, the certificate here is, that Wilson was then, in August 1845, elerk — and' it is utterly silent as to the attestation. As the transcript was not proved in any other manner, nor authenticated in conformity to the Act of Congress, it was properly rejected; and the judgment must be affirmed.

Psr Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Ruffht, 0. J.

The Court considers the decision on both points to be correct. That the plaintiff is not executor or administrator is a plea in bar. 3 Chit. Pl. 942. Stokes v. Bate, 5 B. & C. 491. Consequently, under the statute, the defendant was entitled to plead it with any other bar. Without noticing any objection to the judicial proceedings in Tennessee, as constituting letters testamentary, had the transcript been received in evidence, it is sufficient to say, that the objection, made at the trial,, to its reception, is decisive. The Act of Congress requires, that the presiding magistrate of the Court shall certify, that the person, who attests the transcript, is the clerk of the Court, and that “the attestation is in due form instead of which, the certificate here is, that Wilson was then, in August 1845, elerk — and' it is utterly silent as to the attestation. As the transcript was not proved in any other manner, nor authenticated in conformity to the Act of Congress, it was properly rejected; and the judgment must be affirmed.

Psr Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.C. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/showns-exrs-v-barr-nc-1850.