Platt v. Robins
New York Supreme Court
. This was an action of debt against the defendants, suggesting a. devastavit by them, as the administrators of M. Smith, deceased.
Read the full summary
. This was an action of debt against the defendants, suggesting a. devastavit by them, as the administrators of M. Smith, deceased. The declaration stated a. judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the defendants,, as such administrators, by default, upon a scire facias issued upon a former judgment obtained against the intestate,, in his lifetime, that a writ offieri facias had issued on the said judgment against these defendants, directed to the sheriff of New York,'in which county the venue was laid, commanding him to levy the damages recovered of the goods apd chattels of the…
1Opinion of the CourtRadcliff, J.
1. If the plea of plene administravit was properly pleaded in this action, the onus probandi lay bn the defendants. It is an affirmative (a) plea, and it was incumbent on them to maintain it, which they might have done, by showing that they had fully ad ministered, according to the inventory which they were bound to make when they assumed the administration.(b) (3 Bac. Ab. 80, new ed.)
*3322. According to the ancient law, different modes of proceeding appear to have prevailed. At one period it was held, that a scire facias quare executionem non did not lie against an executor or administrator,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- King v. AnthonyIndiana Supreme Court · 1828
- Moore v. MartindaleIndiana Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by4 opinions
- Williams v. HoldenNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Ruggles & Hooker v. ShermanNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Thurlough v. KendallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1873
- Newcomb v. GossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1840