
    CHARLOTTE DAWS, administratrix, v. DAVID TAYLOR.
    Where a plaintiff declares as administrator, profert of the letters of administration is made in the declaration, and no proof in respect to plaintiff’s representative character, is required on the trial.
    ActioN of assumpsit, tried before bis Honor, Judge Ellis, at the Eall Term, 1856, of Cherokee Superior Court.
    The plaintiff declared on the defendant’s promise, made in the city of Washington, for board and lodging there furnished him. The defendant pleaded the general issue. It was was insisted, on the trial, that the plaintiff should produce her letters of administration, otherwise that she could not recover, and the court was requested so to instruct; but his Honor refused to do so, holding that the plea of the defendant did not put that fact in isstie.
    Yerdict for the plaintiff and judgment. Appeal by the defendant.
    
      Baxter, for plaintiff.
    
      J. IF. Woodfin, for defendant.
   Pearson, J.

We concur in the opinion of his Honor, for the reason given by him. When a plaintiff declares as ad-minisbi'ator, profert of the letters of administration is made in the declaration, and no proof in respect to that fact is required on the trial; but when a plaintiff declares in his own right, as for a trespass, or for trover, after the property had come to his possession, the fact of his being administrator, constitutes a link in his chain of title, and is put in issue, and must be proved on the trial; no profert of the letters of administration being set out in the declaration. This is a well settled distinction.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.  