Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 N.C. 302

Beaty v. . Gingles

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 5, 1860

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1860-12-05

<p>An action against a person as “ executor ” for an act done, or a contract made by him after the death of his testator, cannot be sustained, and the words “ as executor” rejected as surplusage; as may be done where the action is for the party on his own possession, and these words are improperly inserted.</p> <p>The cases Hailey v. Wheeler, 1 Jones’ Rep. 159, and McKay v. Royal, 7 Jon'es’ Rep. 216, cited and approved.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1907

3 state decisions

1018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Battle, J.

¶1 "Where an executor sues upon the possession of his testator, he must sue as executor, because he must make proferí, in his declaration, of his letters testamentary, but if he sue upon his own possession, he must sue in his own name, because his possession has fixed him with assets. If, however, he sue “as executor” when the action is brought upon his own possession, the words “as executor” are considered as mere surplusage ; Hornsey v. Dimocke, Ventris 119 ; Com. Dig. Pleader, (I. D. 1); Cotten v. Davis, 3 Jones’ Rep. 355. But an action against a person “as executor” for an act done or a contract made by him after the death of his teslator, cannot be sustained; for, in such an action, he must be sued in his individual, and not in his representative capacity, and the words “ as executor,” cannot be rejected as surplusage. This is well settled by the case of Hailey v. Wheeler, 4 Jones’ Rep. 159, where the subject is fully discussed; and that case has *304 since been referred to, and confirmed by the very recent one* of McKay & Devane v. Royal, 7 Jones’ Rep. 426.

Per Curiam,

¶2 Judgment reversed and a venire de novo..

/53/nc/302 · .json · Public domain