Superior Court of Delaware, 1832

Lolley v. Needham's Ex'rs

Lolley v. Needham's Ex'rs
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided July 5, 1832 · Cur
1 Del. 86

Counsel

Clayton for deft’s., Ridgely for plff., Clayton and Bates for defts.

Lolley v. Needham's Ex'rs

Opinion of the Court

Per Cur.

The probate is not sufficient. A probate is for the security of the estate, and the law requires that the person making it *87 should disclose all credits within his knowledge. A general reference to the deft’s, books without this, might in many cases evade the check which the law designed to impose upon all claims made upon a deceased person’s estate. The demand here is of $840, with a general reference to the deft’s, books for credits, without specifying a single credit, though it is proved that the plff. has on other occasions, admitted the receipt of specific sums, as being within her recollection and knowledge.

Ridgely for plff. Clayton and Bates for defts.

Judgment of nonsuit.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.