Eslava v. Elliott
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error. to the Circuit Court of Mobile. _ Assumpsit, by the plaintiff against the'defendant in-error. This cause had been before this court previously. [3 Ala.
Read the full summary
Error. to the Circuit Court of Mobile. _ Assumpsit, by the plaintiff against the'defendant in-error. This cause had been before this court previously. [3 Ala. Rep. 5G8.] Upon being remanded the defendants pleaded a plea in the following words: “ and the said Margaret Elliott, for a further plea in this behalf, says actio non, because she says, that at the time of the suing out of the plaintiff’s writ in this case, she was not, and is not, the administratrix of said Elliott’s estate, but that one Frederick S. Blount, was then, and is now the administrator de bonis non, of said estate, and this…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The issue presented to the jury upon the informal plea in this case is, whether the defendant was administra-trix at the time the writ was sued out.
The plaintiff to maintain the issue on his part, offered a transcript of the record of the Orphans’ court of Mobile county, showing a grant of administration on-the estate of John Elliott, depeased, made to the defendant previous to the commencement of this suit. The letters of administration which the court grants, are merely the evidence of the authority conferred on the administrator by the grant of administration, there is therefore no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hosey v. BrasherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wyatt's Adm'r v. RamboSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Clayton v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1918
- Davis v. SwearingenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Clemens v. WilsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866