
    GRAHAM et al. vs. GUNN, Adm’r.
    [AEPEAL PROM JUDGMENT NIL DICIT. J
    1. Complaint; what is parí of ■ — The statement'of the names of the parties to a suit in the margin of the complaint, is a part of the complaint.
    2. Same; what sufficiently describes character m which plaintiff sues. — A complaint which describes the plaintiff in the margin, “ administrator of Moses Gunn, deceased,” merely, and declares that the note sued on is the property of his intestate, sufficiently avers the representative character of the plaintiff, and the ownership of note after judgment by nil dicit.
    
    Appeal from Circuit Court of Coosa.
    Tried before Hon. Chas. Pelham,
    The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion, and the main error insisted on in this court was, that the complaint does not sufficiently show in what character or capacity the plaintiff sues.
    Graham & Abercrombie, for appellants.
    Geo. W. Gunn, contra.
    
   B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The judgment was by nil dicit upon a complaint which describes the plaintiff in the margin as “ administrator of Moses Gunn, deceased,” and recites that the note sued on is the property of the plaintiff’s intestate.

The statement of the names of the parties to a suit, in the margin of the complaint, is made by the Code a part of the complaint. — Rev. Code, p. 673. This being so, it sufficiently appears from the complaint that G. B. Gunn,. as the administrator of Moses Gunn, deceased, claims the amount due upon the note as assets of the estate of that intestate. — Agee v. Williams, 27 Ala. 644; Crimm’s Adm’rs v. Crawford’s Adm’r, 29 Ala. 623 ; Wagner & Hughes v. Chenault, 7 Ala. 677.

The judgment is affirmed.  