204 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [23 Ark. Rawlings vs. Paty et al. adms. [JAzinAnv RAWLINGS VS. PATY ET AL., ADMS. In a petition in debt, under the statute, by an administrator, it is unnecessary to make profert of the letters of administration. Error to Desha Circuit Court. HOD. JOHN C. MURRAY, Circuit Judge. GARLAND 4. RANDOLPH, for the plaintiff. An ordinary action of assumpsit or debt could not have been
23 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 205 TEEM, 1861.] maintained without making profert of the letters a administration (18 Ark. 245). And no reason is perceived why the same necessity does not exist, in this form of action, for the plaintiffs to show their right to sue in the capacity of administrators. Mr. Justice COMPTON delivered the opinion of 'the court. To a Petition in debt brought by. the adMinistiatai'anct stratrix of David Lewis, deceased, the defendant derhurred, upon the ground that in the petition the' plaintiffs 'made no profert of their letters of administration. None was necessary. The proceeding by petitiork'' h-f 'debt! ' is purely a statutory remedy. The statute prescribes the form of the petition, and then Provides that every suit commenced 'in accordance with the form prescribed, shall be prosecuted final judgment and execution, in the same manner as if it had been' commenced in the ordinary form. Gould's Dig., chap.' 150'. In' this case, the form prescribed was followed, not•only substantially, but literally. Let the judgment be affirmed with costs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.