17 Wend. 197 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1837
By the Court,
The exceptions taken to the plea are, 1. It ia not alleged that letters of administration were granted to the defendant nor any letters of administration brought into court; and 2. It does not appear by whom the defendant was appointed administrator, nor whether he was appointea under the laws of this state.
The defendant can not be administrator, unless letters of administration of goods, chattels, and credits of the intestate, has been granted to him by one of the surrogates of this state (2 R. S. 73, § 23, 24). The proper mode of pleading the fact, is by a direct allegation that such letters were granted. The defendant has not pursued that course, but pleads that he was duly appointed administrator. This allegation consists partly of matter of fact and partly of matter of law, and is not capable of trial. That the defendant was appointed administrator by somebody, or in some form, is a question of fact; but whether he was duly appointed or not, is a question of law. The defendant should have stated hoto he was appointed, and then the court could determine its sufficiency upon demurrer, or if an issue to the country were joined upon the fact of having obtained letters, the question could be tried by jury.
This case is like that of The Abbot of Strata Marcella (9 Co. 24), where the defendant pleaded that he lawfully enjoyed the goods of felons; and the plea
The objection is taken by special demurrer, and must prevail. It is unnecessary to inquire whether the plea is bad for not making proferí of the let-, ters of administration.
Judgment for the plaintiff