Jarratt v. Lynch

Supreme Court of North Carolina February 15, 1890

Jarratt v. Lynch, 106 N.C. 422 (N.C. 1890)

Shepherd

Opinion of the Court

Shepherd, J.:

We were not favored with an argument by the appellant, but we have carefully perused the record and are unable to find any error.

His Honor was clearly right in intimating that he would instruct the jury that there was no evidence of fraud; that it was the duty of the administrator de bonis non to complete the settlement of Lynch’s estate; that his distributees must look to Wilson, administrator de bonis non, for settlement, and that defendant could not attack the judgment in this action.

The exception to the witness Watson being permitted to testify to the contents of the letter written by him as the *427attorney of Wilson, to J. C. Lynch, is no ground for a new trial; as Wilson was afterwards placed upon the -stand by the defendant, and testified substantially to the same fact, to-wit, that he made no claim upon the notes.

Granting that the ruling was erroneous, we cannot see how the defendant was, or might'have been prejudiced thereby, and this must appear in order to justify the intervention of this Court.

No error.

Reference

Full Case Name: I.A. JARRATT, Adm'r of ISAAC JARRATT v. JOHN C. LYNCH, Adm'r of ELIZABETH LYNCH
Status: Published
Syllabus: Administrator de bonis non — Settlement of Estate — Collateral Attack on Judgment — Evidence. 1. It is the duty of an administrator cl. b. n. to complete the settlement of his intestate’s estate, and the distributees must look to him for settlement. 2. Where an administrator d. b. n. brought suit against the administrator of the former administrator for a settlement of the estate, which suit was settled by a compromise judgment and the amount recovered duly distributed: Held, in an action by the administrator of the former administrator upon a bond given to him by one of the distributees for certain personal property purchased at his administrator’s sale, and with which his estate had been charged in the settlement with the administrator cl. b. n., that the judgment in said suit could not be attacked in this action; that, upon the testimony, there was no evidence of fraud to go to the jury, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. 3. The admission of the contents of a' letter written by an attorney is no ground for a new trial, when there is afterwards evidence as to the same fact, substantially, as that contained in the letter, especially when it does not appear that the defendant was prejudiced.