#### * Joseph Mansfield *versus*Margaret Patterson, Administratrix.

A creditor of a deceased insolvent, who has filed his claim with the commissioners, cannot support an action against the administrator, on the ground that he has discovered estate not inventoried or accounted for by the administrator, wnich had been fraudulently conveyed by the deceased.

The action was *assumpsit*upon a promissory note made by *William Patterson,*the defendant’s intestate. The defendant pleads the insolvency of her intestate’s estate, and avers that the plaintiff filed his claim with the commissioners of insolvency, that the same was allowed, that she has always been ready to pay him his dividend, and that she has, in all things touching the said administration, conformed to the directions of the law, and has fully administered the estate. The plaintiff replies that the intestate, in his lifetime, fraudulently conveyed to one *S. G.,*with intent to defraud his creditors, a certain parcel of land, of the value of 4000 dollars, which he describes, and which, with the personal estate of the deceased, he avers to be sufficient to pay all the just debts of the deceased; that the same was not inventoried or accounted for by the defendant, and, being found by the plaintiff in the possession of the defendant, was attached in the present action, to respond such judgment as he might recover. The defendant, in her rejoinder, denying that the plaintiff ever gave her notice of the said fraudulent conveyance, or requested her to inventory the said land, alleges that she has fully administered the estate, as far as it has come to her knowledge and possession ; and traverses that the intestate did fraudulently convey the premises in the plaintiff’s replication described, of the value therein alleged, *viz.,*of sufficient value, with the said personal estate, to pay all the said debts, &c., and tenders an issue to the country ; —which being joined by the plaintiff, the jury returned their verdict, “ that the said *W. P.*did, prior to his decease, with intent to defraud his creditors, fraudulently convey the premises in the plaintiff’s replication described, the same being of the value of 550 dollars; which, with the personal estate of said intestate, was not sufficient to pay all the just debts of said intestate,” &c.

* The defendant moved that the verdict might be amended conformably to the pleadings, and that the same might be entered on the record, according to the issue joined between the parties, thus — “ that the said *W. P.*did not, prior to his decease, with intent to defraud his creditors, fraudulently convey the premises in the plaintiff's replication described, of sufficient *438value, with the personal estate of said intestate, to pay all the just debts of said intestate,” &c.

The defendant likewise moved for judgment to be rendered, upon the verdict, for her costs.

*Curia.*

The plaintiff cannot support his action, having filed his claim, and received his distributive share. The statute gives an action only in favor of those who do not file their claim, and discover estate not inventoried or accounted for.

The remedy, in cases like the present, is on the administration bond. If an administrator has notice of such fraudulent conveyance, and does not proceed to sell the estate as belonging to his intestate, this will be unfaithful administration.

Judgment must therefore be entered for the defendant, notwith standing the issue is found for the plaintiff. (1) (a)

*Kinsman*for the plaintiff.

*Davies*for the defendant.

(1) (a)

Vide, ante, 148, *Wildridge*vs. *Patterson,*Admx.; and 264, *Paine, J.,*vs. *Nichols, Adm. (a)*Vide *Johnson & Al.*vs. *Libbey & Al.*ante, 140.