*Georgetown.*

Heard by chancellor Gaillard.

#### Alexander Glass, *vs.*F. M. Baxter.

The court will follow a note of hand, as the property of an estate, 'if really taken for assets of the estate sold by the administrator, though the note be taken in the private name of the administrator — and . Will enforce this by injunction against the private creditors of the administrator.

This bill states, that complainant, in the year 1800, applied for and obtained letters of administration, with ■die will annexed, on the estate of Joseph Alexander Glass, *154and was put in possession of a noto as part of said eb-tato for $>240 10, drawn by Samuel Commander and James Corbut, dated 21st May 1804, and pay abb' to William Adams. That William Adams the .payee of the note, had administered sometime before on the estate of the said Joseph A. Glass *;*but that the letters of administration had been revoked by the ordinary. That during the administration of the estate by said Adams, Samuel Commander became purchaser of various articles at a sale of tbc property of Joseph A. Glass, from William. Adams ; and also of a horse, from the said Adams, in his own right, of the value of *$*120, and gave the note aforesaid, intending to include as well the value of the horse, as the value of various articles which he had purchased belonging to the estate of Joseph A. Glass, of W¡b» Adams, administrator as aforesaid.

*153FEB'Y, 1811

*154William Adams algo became a purchaser at the said sale, to a considerable amount, to the value of S 120, and did then declare that bis only object in selling the horse to Commander, and including the value of it in the note given for the purchase of the property of the estate of Joseph A Glass, was to indemnify the said estate, and that the cause of his not being styled administrator ’ in the note, was merely accidental. As proof that Adams did not consider himself the owner of the note, the agent of said Adams gave up the note by his direction, to the complainant, the present administrator of Glass, as the property of the estate. That on the 3rd of March, 1804, 'F. M. Baxter sued out a writ of attachment against the said Adams, who was absent from the state, and summoned Commander as garnishee of said Adams, to show cause why the money due on the note should not be adjudged the, property of Adams, avid appropriated to the satisfaction of his debt. The bill further states, that legal proceedings woróüad on the said writ of attachment, and that a judgment was"obtained against the said Adams, and execution issued thereon, by which Commander is stopped from paying to your orator, the legal representative. The prayer of the bill is, that a writ of injunction may he issued, to command tito sheriff not to *155proceed in enforcing1 the execution, until the hearing of this case, and for oilier relief.

It appeal's from the testimony of Mr. Commander that ho purchased cattle to the amount of §120 from Adams, as administrator of Glass, at the sale of Glass’ property, and that he gave him his note for §240 10, part of this sum being for a horse lie purchased at the same time from Adams: the horse was Adams’ property, and the note for § 240 10, was taken l>y Adams, because be said, he himself owed the estate of Glass monies. Mr. Commander says, that Adams also purchased cattlp belonging to the estate of his intestate, when he, Commander made bis purchase, and the note is dated at the same time, in May 18Q4. Some years afterwards, Adams runaway, and an attachment against his property wag issued. He kept no account as administrator of Glass ; the note is in the possession of the administrator do bonis non of Glass’ estate. The court is of opinion that the note was given for property belonging to Glass’ estate, and that that estate is entitled to it.

The on ORE Gairrard.

There was no appeal, from this decree..