North's Administrators v. Clark
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court. In the case of Wilson v. Codman, Marshall, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: — “ They (the words of the Judiciary
, Those means, we suppose, are to strike out the appearance of the plaintiff, upon motion made during the same term, and to permit the defendant to pray oyer of the letters of administration, and plead that the plaintiff is not administrator. This plea he has a right to plead, and it is a good plea in bar, and not in abatement. 1 Saund. 274, n. 3; 1 Chitty’s Pleadings, 484.
We think the plaintiff is bound to give oyer of his letters of administration, whenever demanded, before the expiration of the rule to plead, notwithstanding the dictum in Roberts v. Archer, 2 Salk. 497, where it is said that, “ upon the profert of a deed, it remains in court all that term, but no longer, unless it be controverted ; but letters testamentary, or of administration, do not remain in court; for the party may have occasion to produce them elsewhere.”
We know of no rule which requires oyer to be prayed for before the defendant is bound to plead.
The rule day is substituted for a day in the term, and, we think, is to be considered as a day in the term. In the present case, however, the defendant did not wait for the rule to plead, but prayed oyer almost instanter. We think his plea is in due time, and ought to be received.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.