43 N.C. 246 | N.C. | 1852
The bill is filed for an account against the defendant N. T. Jones as administrator of Hardy Jones and David Jones. Hardy Jones, *161
in his lifetime, sent a parcel of negroes to the State of Alabama by his son, the defendant David T. Jones, to hire out. Hardy Jones died intestate, and N. T. Jones is his administrator. The plaintiffs and defendants are his next of kin. The slaves were afterwards taken into possession by the administrator and the estate settled and duly distributed, except the claim against the defendant D. T. Jones for the hire of the negroes while in his possession. David Jones came to this State and received from the administrator his proper proportion of the estate of his father without any deduction or being called to account for his advancements. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for an account of the hires of the negroes. This account is claimed by the plaintiffs on two grounds. The first is that it was the duty of the administrator to have gone to Alabama and taken out letters of administration there and collected what was due from the defendant D. T. Jones, and, second, because he paid over to D. T. Jones his distributive share without retaining what was due from him to the estate. The first ground is untenable. An administrator is by virtue of his appointment bound to collect all the personal assets of the intestate which are within the State, because his letters of administration are coextensive with the State, but he cannot, by force of them, collect the assets in another State, and is under no legal obligation to procure administration out of the State. Plummer v. Brandon,
The agreement between the father and son was, if the latter (248) would take slaves to Alabama and hire them out, the former would give the latter one-half the proceeds, and allow him his board and schooling for one year. The number of the negroes was twelve, and the defendant David Jones at that time resided in the State of Alabama. It is proved that the slaves were hired out by David for the sum of $1,200, and notes taken from the hirers. This transaction between the father and son cannot be looked upon in the light of a contract, properly speaking, but as a donation made by the former to the latter of so much money to settle or assist him in life. The sum of $600 was too large, and shows, we think, the true character of the transaction. This case bears a strong analogy toHanner v. Winburn,
It must be referred to the clerk.
PER CURIAM. Ordered accordingly.
Cited: Williams v. Williams,
(250)