Savage v. Meriam

Decided May 9, 1822

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1822-05-09

— Debt on a writing obligatory payable to the plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of Prentiss, deceased. The defendants demurred specially to the declaration, and showed for cause, that there was no profert of the letters of administration. Judgment on the demurrer in favour of the defendants.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1889

4 state decisions

Relies on Fitch v. Newberry · Talmage v. Chapel

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-05-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings (1).

¶2 There was no occasion for the plaintiffs, in this case, to describe themselves as administrators: they might have sued in their own right; and, therefore, profert of the letters was unnecessary. So, in an action on a judgment Obtained by the plaintiff as administrator, he need not make profert of the letters of administration. And if he names himself as administrator, it may be rejected as surplusage. The reason is, the judgment is considered a debt due to the plaintiff in his personal capacity, and he may declare that the debt is due to himself. Crawford, adm’r, v. Whittal, 1 Doug. 4, note 1. — Bonafous v. Walker, 2 T. R. 126, 128. — Tallmage, adm'r, v. Chappel, 16 Mass. 71. — Biddle, adm'r, v. Wilkins, 1 Peters, 686.