State ex rel. Williams v. Britton's Adm'r

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State ex rel. Williams v. Britton's Adm'r

33 N.C. 110

DecidedJune 15, 1850

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.C. 110 (State ex rel. Williams v. Britton's Adm'r) 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

State ex rel. Williams v. Britton's Adm'r, 33 N.C. 110 (N.C. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

Pearson, J.

The only question presented in this case is, can the next of kin maintain an action on the administration bond, after the death of the administrator, because he failed to take into his possession, and distribute, certain negroes to which his intestate was entitled ?

[112]*112His Honor was of opinion that the action could not be maintained, and we fully concur with him.

Taylor v. Brooks, 4 Dev. and Bat. 143; State v. Johnson, 8 Ired. 381 and 397, are in point and settle the question.

The name “ administrator de bonis non” explains itself. That officer is to take charge of all the estate, which has not been administered ; and is to finish whatever has been left undone by the first administrator. Assets are administered by taking them into possession and paying them over to creditors, or to the next of kin, in the course of distribution. Both acts must concur, before the goods can be said to have been administered. In regard to the negroes, which are the subject of controversy in this suit, neither act has been done, and they are, to all intents and purposes, unadministered.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pearson, J.

The only question presented in this case is, can the next of kin maintain an action on the administration bond, after the death of the administrator, because he failed to take into his possession, and distribute, certain negroes to which his intestate was entitled ?

[112]*112His Honor was of opinion that the action could not be maintained, and we fully concur with him.

Taylor v. Brooks, 4 Dev. and Bat. 143; State v. Johnson, 8 Ired. 381 and 397, are in point and settle the question.

The name “ administrator de bonis non” explains itself. That officer is to take charge of all the estate, which has not been administered ; and is to finish whatever has been left undone by the first administrator. Assets are administered by taking them into possession and paying them over to creditors, or to the next of kin, in the course of distribution. Both acts must concur, before the goods can be said to have been administered. In regard to the negroes, which are the subject of controversy in this suit, neither act has been done, and they are, to all intents and purposes, unadministered.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.C. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-williams-v-brittons-admr-nc-1850.