*Columbia.*

Heard byChancellor James.

’CASE XVII»

#### James Knox, et al. vs. Stephen Picket, et al.

■ One administrator is not liable for the acts of another, which are distinct from his own, and not concurred in by him. *t*

*.*This court can judge of a case arising on administration bond, which comes incidentally before it, without sending it to law — and a reference to the commissioner could ascertain how far each administrator was liable on devastavit.

The husband is liable for debts of the wife, whether arising by contract, or, misfeasance, as by a devastavit — and his estate shall pay for the devastavit, without touching her settled estate. The husband’s estate, however, is liable for the devastavit committed by her before the marriage, only so far as the property he got by her will indemnify it; and his estate is liable for devastavits after the marriage, only so far as he actually received the money or funds. After that the separate properly of the wife becomes liable.

Administrator is liable for costs incurred by his neglect; but not. for costs necessarily incurred in defence of the estate.

FEB’Y 1810.

ÍN this case the following questions arose for the decision of the court:

First, — Whether the defendants being co-administrators, are liable for the defalcation^ of each other ? and whether, in such case, if the administration bond comes incidentally before the court, it will not decide up- ■ on it, without directing a suit at law ? Upon the first *93branch of this question, the court is of opinion, that the acts of one adminstrator may be so distinct and separate from those of another, that it may not be equitable to charge them jointly ; and that they ought not to be so charged, unless for some joint act. And upon the second branch of the question, the court cannot sec why (to do complete equity) they might not as well decide upon an administration bond, coming incidentally before them, as upon any other deed, on which they arc in the habits of thus deciding; nor why, even upon such bonds, though joint, it may not be referred to the master to ascertain how far, each administrator separately, has been guilty of a devastavit.

Second.' — Whether the executors of Reuben Starke, who intermarried with the defendant, Mrs. Picket, (after the death of her first husband, Knox) be liable for her acts as administratrix, before the said marriage ?

it would appear that the husband is liable by law for the debts of the wife, whether such arise by contract, or her misfeasance, such as on a devastavit: but how far the executors may be liable, is a question which will depend upon circumstances. In this case there was a settlement of part of the wife’s fortune, and the other part went to the husband : Then there will arise a third question : Whether, if the executors are liable, her own property under the settlement should not be first chargeable ? I am of opinion that it should not. The very intention of the settlement must have been to guard that property from the claims and the debts of the husband ; and it does not appear to he material whether those debts should be of his own contracting, or whether they arose in consequence of his marriage with her. The marriage is considered in law as a good consideration to make him so liable, and lie ought to have been aware that there might be such debts before he made the settlement, and either not have entered into it, or made provision thereby (which was not done) for his indemnification, out of the settled property.

I am, however, of opinion, that the property of the husband is not liable any further, than the defalcation *94which may have taken place before the ¡marriage, for which the fortune which came by her, may be an indemnification ,• nor further, during the marriage, than the sums actually received by him *•,*and that afterwards the separate property of the wife will eventually be liable, In this case Í can see no distinction between the property which came by the wife unsettled, and] the property which was his own. As soon as the marriage took place, and he had reduced ihe first into possession, it became just as much his own as the last.

Fourth. — Whether the administrators of Dr. Knox are liable for costs incurred by their own neglect, and whether they are not entitled to credit for them, where it became necessary to defend the suits ? It is very plain that the administrators must be liable for costs incurred by their neglect; and it is but equitable where it became necessary to defend suits, that the complainants should there be chargeable.

Therefore, let it he referred to the commissioner to report what sums are due to the complainants upon the. above principles.

W. D. James.

There was no appeal from this decree.