M'KNIGHT
v.
CRAIG'S ADMINISTRATOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a suit against a defendant's administrator on a scire facias (a writ to enforce a judgment), the Supreme Court held that the administrator could only plead defenses that the original defendant could have pleaded in the initial action, and could not introduce new pleas in the scire facias proceeding since such pleas would have been improper in the original action. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for the defendant to plead to the original action, establishing that a scire facias is a continuation of the original action rather than a new proceeding against the representative.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Marshall, Ch. J.
delivered' the opinion, of. the spurt to the following effect.
The. act of assembly of Virginia, is copied almost literally from the.English statute of 8 and 9 W. III. c. 11. The case in 6 Mod. is a. decision expressly upon that statute, and is precisely in point, that the defendant upon the scire.facias can only plead what the intestate could have pleaded; and that it is not to be considered as a proceeding against the representative of die deceased, but a continuance of the original action.
The plea is such as could not have been pleaded in the original action, and is therefore bad.
The judgment must be reversed, and the .emanded for the defendant to plead to me original action, if he should think proper.*
To a question by E. J. Lee, the Chief Justice answered, that ’if the plaintiff, in error should obtain a judgment in the court below, it will of course be with costs. So in all cases of reversal, if this court direct .the court’ below to enter • judgment for the plaintiff in error, the court below will,.of course, enter the judgment with the costs of that court.
*
The .court below considered this case as coming witüin the act of congress, vol Up 71. passed 24 th 1789, Authorizes the court (t to render judgment for or against the executor gr adminisvr.qtor, as the case may require.” It does not appear whether that act. was taken into consideration by this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Atl. & Gulf R.R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637 (Fla. 1876)
-
N.H. Newman v. Graddick, 740 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1984)
-
Ransom v. Brennan, 437 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1971)…ire facias can only plead what the intestate could have pleaded; and [that] it is not to be considered as a proceeding against the representative of the deceased, but a continuance of the original action.” McKnight v. Craig Adm’r, 6 Crunch 183, 187, 3 L.Ed. 193 (1810).3 But descriptions of the consequences of substitution do not answer the inquiry of what the court, having subject matter jurisdiction, must do to obtain personal jurisdiction over the party sought to be substituted. The inquiry is especially…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence