Gray v. McFarland
Gray v. McFarland
Opinion of the Court
This suit is not to be regarded as an
The exceptions to the plea of payment were properly sustained. Said plea is vague, uncertain, and indefinite. It does not show at what time the payment was made which it seeks to set up; whether before or after the judgment of the county court, upon which appellee sues. For is it averred that appellee ever accepted in payment the notes with which it is alleged to have been made, or, in fact, that anything was or could have been realized from them.
There is no error in the judgment, and it is therefore
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Gray v. Wilson Y. McFarland
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- A suit against an administrator and his sureties, for an amount ordered to be paid to a creditor by the probate court, is not a proceeding to establish an original debt. The authority of the county court to order money paid to a creditor is conferred by the plain language of the statute. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 1341, 1389, Note 524.) The order of the county court upon an administrator to pay an allowance to a creditor is a conclusive and binding judgment upon the parties and their privies, as to all points directly involved and necessarily determined' by it. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1341.) The failure of the administrator to pay according to the order of the county court renders him immediately and primarily liable for the amount of damages sustained by the creditor. A plea of payment must plainly and distinctly set forth the dates and facts of the payment, and if the defendant aver that he paid in notes, it must be stated that the notes were accepted or the money has been realized. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3444, Note 795.)