#### *Crutcher and Others v. Crutcher’s Executor and His Securities.

Argued October 21st, 1815.

i. Chancery Practice — Decree against Executor and Sureties. — Removal of Executor from Commonwealth —Remedy,—if a decree be pronounced, by a superior court of chancery, against an executor, in a suit brought against him and his securities; but without charging, or exonerating them by such decree; and the executor remove out of the commonwealth, without satisfying the same; a second suit may be brought against him and them, in the superior court of chancery of any other district, in which the securities reside, to get satisfaction, from them.

See the cases of Turner and others v. Chinn’s executors and others, *1*H. & M. 53, Gordon’s administrators v. the Justices of Frederick, 1 Munf. p. 1; Catlett and others v. Carter’s executors, 2 Munf. 24; Meade and others v. Brooking, 3 Munf. 548: Hairston v. Hughes and others, 3 Munf. 568.(1)

Thomas Crutcher and others, on the 22d of August, 1809, exhibited their bill, in the superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, against,Thomas Crutcher, executor of Thomas Crutcher deceased, and Christopher Blackburn and Reuben Chapman, his. securities; stating, among others things,that they had obtained a decree, in the superior court of chancery for the district of Williams-burg, against the said executor, for the sums stated in the hill; that he had removed to Kentucky, and they could not obtain payment of him ; that his securities Blackburn and Chapman were parties to that suit, hut no decree, either charging, or exonerating-them from their ultimate responsibility, had been made in that cause. The bill alleged, also, that the defendants, Blackburn and Chapman, had received from the executor property enough to satisfy the said decree. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed relief against them, as well as the executor also, for general relief.

Blackburn and Chapman filed their answers, admitting themselves to be securities *\*that they held some funds for their indemnification ; — and that the executor had removed to Kentucky ; — alleging, too, that some of the plaintiffs were residents of that state, and: *223had received their proportions of the decree.

A copy of the record and decree of the Williamsburg chancery court was exhibited. The cause was regularly heard ; publication having been made against the absent defendant.

Chancellor Taylor was of opinion, “that, as the jurisdiction of the superior court of chancery at Williamsburg first attached in this case, by the institution there of the *suit in the bill mentioned, that court, and not this, should carry into effect the object of that suit, which would render the present bill unnecessary ; and, as this objection appeared by the bill, a plea to the jurisdiction would have been improper.” He therefore decree, that the bill of the plaintiffs be dismissed, and that they pay to the defendants, Blackburn and Chapman, their costs. Prom this decree the complainants appealed.

Thursday, October 26th, 1815.

(1)

 Note. But see tbe act of 1813, ch. 13, p. 40.

The president pronounced the court’s opinion, that, as Thomas Crutcher, the executor of Thomas Crutcher deceased, the defendant, against whom the decree was rendered in the case among the exhibits, is alleged to have removed to the state of Kentucky since the rendition thereof ; and as the appellees Christopher Blackburn and Reuben Chapman reside within the jurisdiction of the chancery court directed by law to be holden in Richmond, and not within that directed to be held in Williamsburg, there is error in the decree now before us, in having decided that the last mentioned court had exclusive jurisdiction in the case, and not the former.

Decree reversed ; and cause remanded to the court of chancery, to be proceeded in as to the appellees Christopher Blackburn and Reuben Chapman ; and liberty also reserved to them to shew that the demand of the appellants has been satisfied, either in the whole, or in part, by the appellee Thomas Crutcher.