Hendricks Adm's v. Snodgrass
Hendricks Adm's v. Snodgrass
Opinion of the Court
The errors assigned in this case are-—
First — That in the record and proceedings, and also in the giving* judgment, there is manifest error in this — That the declaration and proceedings and the matters therein contained are not sufficient in Jaw, for the plaintiff below to have and maintain his action against the defendant.
Secondly — There is error in this that by the record, it appears, that the suit at law was revived by sci. fa. against the present plaintiffs in error, as administrator of the administrators of William Pool deceased, and not as administrator, de bonis non of said William Pool.
Thirdly — There was no issue made up in the court below, and Fourthly — It does not appear, that a judgment by default was taken, and a writ of enquiry thereupon awarded.
It also appears from the record, that there-was no issue made up in the court below, nor was there a judgment by default taken, or a writ of en-quiry awarded, prerequisites which were necessary, in order to authorize the court to call to its assistance a jury to pass upon the rights of the parties. From this view of the case, it seems to me, the regular course for the plaintiff below would have been, to have revived the suit in the name of an administrator de bonis non, of William Pool deceased, before he could have regularly taken his judgment, as this was hot done, the proceedings must be held as irregular, and as well upon this, as the latter ground taken by the plaintiffs in error, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HENDRICKS ADM'S. v. WILLIAM SNODGRASS
- Status
- Published