TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Aubuchon v. Lory

Aubuchon v. Lory, 23 Mo. 99 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1856
Judges
Leonard
Citations
23 Mo. 99
Headnotes
1. An action can not be maintained by an executor or administrator as such to recover damages for trespass upon realty belonging to the estate of the testator or intestate. The action should be brought in the name of the heir or devisee.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. This was a suit originally commenced before a justice of tbe peace. Tbe plaintiff, Cecille Aubucbon, styled berself in ber complaint “ Administratrix of the estate of Gr. Aubucbon, deceased,” and complained that defendant, Lory, “did take and move fence off tbe lands belonging to tbe estate of the said Gr. Aubucbon, deceased.” In the summons issued by tbe justice, plaintiff is styled “ executrix.” Tbe defendant pleaded title in himself, whereupon the cause was removed to tbe Land Court. In tbe Land Court, a motion to dismiss tbe suit was made on tbe ground that plaintiff could not, as executrix, sue for damages to tbe realty. On tbe bearing of this motion, although plaintiff, orally by attorney, alleged title in her individual right, tbe court -sustained the motion and dismissed tbe suit; whereupon plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Leonard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LEONARD, Judge,

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

Tbe plaintiff, as executrix, instituted an action in a justice’s court for an alleged trespass upon her testator’s land, committed since bis decease, which, on a plea of title, was removed into tbe Land Court, where it was dismissed upon the ground that the plaintiff could not maintain a suit in that capacity for tbe alleged wrong. •

The judgment must be affirmed. Tbe real estate of a deceased person descends, upon bis death, to bis heirs, or passes to the devisees under his will. By tbe common law, tbe per *100 sonal representative, whether executor or administrator, takes no interest in it, and our statute" gives him nothing hut the naked power to sell for the payment of debts, or to make short leases, under the direction of the county, court. The right to the possession, therefore, belongs to the heirs or devisees, and they only are the proper parties to sue for any injury to it. It is upon this principle that executors and administrators, as such, are not allowed to maintain actions of ejectment. The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1866–1867: 21870–1871: 11876–1877: 11878–1879: 11884–1885: 21886–1887: 11890–1891: 11896–1897: 41908–1909: 11910–1911: 21944–1945: 118662026peak 1896 · 4

Most recent

  1. Boatmen's National Bank v. Fledderman179 S.W.2d 102 (Mo. 1944)
  2. Barnard v. Keathley130 S.W. 306 (Mo. 1910)
  3. Orchard v. Wright-Dalton-Bell-Anchor Store Co.125 S.W. 486 (Mo. 1910)
  4. McQuitty v. Wilhite117 S.W. 730 (Mo. 1909)
  5. Emmons v. Gordon41 S.W. 998 (Mo. 1897)
  6. Estes v. Nell41 S.W. 940 (Mo. 1897)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list