Hazen v. Durling
New Jersey Court of Chancery
The pleadings in this case present the following state of facts. John Durling, of the county of Sussex, in the year 1811, died intestate; and his widow, Charity Durling, and John Tillman, took out letters of administration upon his estate, and gave a bond for the faithful discharge of their duties as such administrators under the act, with the complainant and Amos Shiner as sureties.
Read the full summary
The pleadings in this case present the following state of facts. John Durling, of the county of Sussex, in the year 1811, died intestate; and his widow, Charity Durling, and John Tillman, took out letters of administration upon his estate, and gave a bond for the faithful discharge of their duties as such administrators under the act, with the complainant and Amos Shiner as sureties. Jesse Baldwin, having a claim against the intestate, prosecuted a suit in the supreme court of this state against the administrators, and upon the several pleas of the general issue and the statute of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The first and most obvious question to be settled ill this cause is, whether the administration boud was forfeited. If not, then the complainant paid the money voluntarily, and the foundation upon which he has based his suit is gone. In the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury v. Wills, 1 Salk. 316, it was held by Holt, chief justice, that the condition of this bond was answered by rendering an account, and was not intended to be a security for the payment of the debts: that a creditor had no right to prosecute this bond, and assign for breach the non-payment of a debt to him.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hubbele v. WheelerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1827