42 S.C.L. 29
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided December 15, 1854
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1854-12-15
BEFORE O’NEALE, J., AT CHESTER, FALL TERM, 1854. The report of bis Honor, tbe presiding Judge, is as follows: “ This was a sum. pro. on a note under seal of Thos. Robins, deceased, the alleged testator of the defendant. The note was proved in the ordinary way. The defence was, that the defendant.yas not executor. The plaintiff averred that the defendant was executor de son tort.
Decided 1854-12-15
¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by
¶2It is plain that there can be no intermeddling with assets where there are no assets; and that paying the debts of a deceased with one’s own money, does not make one executor de son tort. Although the defendant in this case may have had funds of his deceased son, and from them may have paid' one debt, and promised to pay another, we see no' evidence of this, and therefore direct a new trial.
¶3Motion granted.
¶4Motion granted.