Cock v. Abernathy
Cock v. Abernathy
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abernathy was a competent witness for the estate of Bank-head, of which he was the administrator, notwithstanding he was incidentally interested as one of the distributees of Bank-head’s estate. Ife was not testifying to establish his own claim against the estate of the deceased, Robinson. Code, § 1740, and its annotations; B. & A. Digest, 1252; Sweatman v. Parker, 49 Miss., 31.
The objection that there was no sufficient evidence of Bank-head’s death cannot be of any avail to appellant in this proceeding. The grant of letters of administration on his estate is prima facie proof that he is dead.
The claim was not barred by the statute of limitations of three years because the liability of Robinson is provable by a writing. Washington v. Soria, 73 Miss., 665. That of sis years does not bar because that time had not elapsed from the date of the writing, July 28, 1893, to the date of its probate, March 11, 1899.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Clarence R. Cock, Administrator v. Jacob B. Abernathy, Administrator
- Cited By
- 22 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Witnesses. Estate of decedent. Code 1892, 11740. An administrator, although a distributee of his intestate’s estate, is a competent witness to establish a claim of his intestate against the estate of another decedent. He is not incompetent, under Code 1892, § 1740, providing that a person shall not testify as a witness to establish his own claim or defense against the estate of a deceased person, etc. 2. Evidence. Death of person. Chunt of administration. A grant of letters of administration on an estate is prima facie evidence of the death of the person upon whose estate the administration is granted. 3. Statute oe Limitations. Writing. Code 1892, $ 2739. A cause of action, evidenced by a writing acknowledging a debt, is not barred by the three years’ statute of limitation. Code 1892, l 2739.