ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS.
1. To entitle an administrator to maintain trover against
the vendee of his intestate's son and heir at law, it is not
necessary to show an order of the Ordinary authorizing
a sale of the slaves. Reid vs. Butt, adm'r.
2. A purchases of B. a slave; C, the father of B, dies,
and D, the administrator of C, brings an action of tro-
ver against A, to recover the negro, alleging that it was
in the possession of his intestate at the time of his
death, and he was the owner thereof.
Held, That the plaintiff was entitled to recover the
whole property: aliter, if the defendant had made
proof that there were no debts due by the estate; in
that case the plaintiff could only recover the inter-
est or share of the other distributee or distributees of
the estate in the property. Id.
3. An order of Court appointing A. C. C. adminis-
trator on the estate of J. B. C., on his giving bond and
security in $1000, with a subsequent order granting A.
C. C. leave to sell land as such administrator, is admis-
sible to prove the administration. Burkhalter vs. Ec-
4. It is not necessary to the validity of a claim to land at
executors or administrators sale, that bond and securi-
ty should be given. Falls vs. Griffith, adm'r.
5. The failure of the representatives of an estate to in-
ventory and sell a portion of the property found in pos-
session of their intestate, at his death, but claimed by
a third person, ought not to prejudice the title of the
estate; provided the circumstances were such as satis-
factorily to account for the omission. Walker vs. Wal-
ker, adm'r.
6. Heirs at law may, upon a special case made, as for in-
stance upon a charge of collusion between the parties,
institute suit over the head of the administrator, mak-
ing him a party defendant in the case. It requires,
however, a clear case, to justify this interference with
the due course of administration, by the trustee appoint-
ed by the testator, or by the Ordinary. McLendon et
ux., et al., vs. Woodward et al.
7. F. intermarried with S., a widow, with several minor
children. By the consent and counsel of the brothers
of his wife, F. received at the same time a negro girl,
which he sold, together with her infant child; with the
understanding that the debts of the former husband
were to be paid out of the proceeds and the children
raised and supported. D. one of the brothers-in-law ad-
ministered many years afterwards, on the estate of the
former husband, and brought trover against F. for the
negroes:
Held, That upon a bill filed, the administrator was
bound to account for the debts and expenses of the es-
tate and family; allow F. to retain his distributive share,
and also to deduct the amount of certain demands paid
out for one of the children, deceased. Dorsett, adm'r.
vs. Frith.
8. An administrator may retain a debt due to himself
from his intestate, though the debt was barred by the
statute of limitations, at the death of the intestate. Ba-
ker et ux., et al., vs. Bush, adm'r.
A testator used this language in his will, "it is my will
and desire, that at the division of my property, each
one," (legatee,) "shall be charged with, and account for
in said division, all money or property they have receiv-
ed from me, so as to make them share equally in the
property to be divided, and in advances."
Held, That the legatees were bound to account for all
money "received" by them, as much that received
by them, as a loan, as that received by them, as an ad-
vancement. Ex'or's of Nolan vs. Bolton et al.
1. Under the Act of 1854, complainant may amend his
bill as matter of right at any stage of the cause, wheth-
er in matter of form or of substance. Camp vs. Ban-
croft, Bells & Marshall.
2. When the plaintiff in trover begins his petition thus:
A. B. administrator &c. of &c. and tenders his letters as
his authority to bring the action, if it be not a suit by
him, as administrator, (as for myself, I hold it is,) it is
clearly amendable, so as to make it such, by prefixing
as often as may be necessary, the potent little monosyl-
lable, as. Laughter vs. Butt, adm'r.
3. A suit brought in the name of a person to whom a
note not negotiable has been passed, may be amended
by inserting the name of the payee for the use of such
person. Hayne, et al., vs. Perry.
1. It is in extreme cases only, that a jury should award
twenty-five per cent., the maximum damages known to
the law, for a frivolous appeal. McMillan et al., vs.
Lawrence et al.
2. The amount of damages to be assessed, in each case,
is a question for the jury alone, uninfluenced by the
opinion of the Court, touching the matter. Id.
3. In awarding damages, the jury need not be restricted
to the particular facts of the case, but may look to the
condition of the country, the price of property, the
worth of money, &c., and then assess such a per cent
as may seem to them reasonable and just, under all the
circumstances, provided they are satisfied, that the ap-
peal was frivolous and intended for delay only. Id.
4. An Attorney at law is not authorized to make the af-
fidavit required by the Act of 1842, to entitle a party to
appeal without the payment of costs or giving securi-
ty. Elder vs. Whitehead,
5. Persons who are cited in the Court of Ordinary, be-
come parties to the proceeding, and when there is an
appeal in that proceeding, they are carried up as parties
to the appellate Court, though they may not be the ac-
tual appellants; consequently, it may happen, that the
appeal will be good as to them, when it will not be
good as to the actual appellants. Warnock vs. Wat-
son, et al.
1. A case pending in Court, and referred to arbitrators,
by agreement of the parties, comes under the XXXth
section of the Judiciary Act of 1799, and not under the
Arbitration Act of 1856; and in such a case, it is error
in the Court to direct the award to be entered by the
Clerk upon the minutes of the Court, without first hear-
ing and determining the validity of the exceptions filed
to the award.
The Act of 1856 applies only to cases originating out
of Court. Walker, ex'or, vs. Walker et al.
2. The minutes of arbitrators in a cause referred to them,
cannot be made a part of the record of the cause. Wal-
ker et al. vs. Walker ex'or.
3. A bill of exceptions (and bond and security given and
cost paid) to the judgment of the Court, ordering an
award of arbitrators to be entered on the minutes of the
Court, does not suspend proceedings in the same, on a
motion to make the award the judgment of the Court;
the motions being distinct and independant of each
other. Id.
4. An award is subject to be set aside, for a mistake in
it, even though, the mistake may not be apparent on the
face of it. King vs. Armstrong.
A bond with security given to a plaintiff in attachment,
by the defendant, with a condition to produce the prop-
erty levied on at the day of sale, is not the bond requir-
|