Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-05-15
[Fo~ Dsasrs Per An.um Paid in Aavaace. ]

of money; the defendants without
demanding oyer of the condition OF
The bond] pleaded jointly conditions
performed and plene administrative.
II this plea be regarded as the plea OF
The administrators, it might have been
objected to, and ought not to have
heen received, as the plea of the seeu-
rites, it was either an absurdity, or
implied in the former plea of conditi
ons performed. The plaintiffs, how
sves, without objecting or demurring
[ses 8 East 81 to the plea, repli !.
ed that they ought NOT to be precIuded
from having their action aforesaid a
gainst the said defendants Fat the in
stance of the said Cartmilll by any
thing in their plea alleged, because
they say, that the defendants the adj
ministrators did not cause to be made
a true and perfect inventory of the
goods. BIC. of the deceased which
came to their hands: and did not ex-
hibit an account of the same to the
courtof Frederick, when thereto re-
CURED and did not faithfully admin
ister the said goods and chatt.ls in
this, that the administrators aforesaid
did not pay the amount of Judgment
obtained in the said court by N. Cart
mill aforesaid plaintiff against the said
defendants for the sum of f ~, &c. in
which suit the said adrnintrators plea.
ded payment and plene administrative ;
and because the said administrators
have wasted the estate aforesaid; ard
this they are ready to verify, and pray
that the same may be enquired of by
the country, and the defendants like.
wise. The jury found for the plain
tiff THE debt in the declaration mention
ed, to be discharged by the payment of
the amount of,he judgment in the repli.
cation mentioned, 1.-THE court should
BE OF opinion that an action on the
administration bond aforesaid, can
be maintained without showing in
evidence in such action Judgment
in an action of dcvastavit against the
said administrators, John Kingan &C.
So otherwise they find for the de-
fendant.' The coun'y court gave
Judgment for the defendants. The
district court reversed that Judgment.
with costs both in the district and
county court; butwithout adding such
judgment as the county court ought to
have rendered. Mr.. Munford for
the apprllees, on the authority OF
Mantz VS.. Hepdley, r Hen. and
Menf. 31s] admitted that this omis.
sion was an error in the Judgment of
the district court, which this court
might amend. The case of Bibb vs..
Cau'horne, 4 Wash. OIL and what
was said by Judge Pendleton RI
Call, 259] in the case of Cabell VS..
Ha,dwicke, are additional authori es
III favor of Mr.. Munford's concessi-
on; and shew what kind of judgmen,
rhe courts ought to pronounce in suits
upon executors bonds where the
plaintiffs may be entitled to iudg-
ment.
But we are called upon by the coun.
sci for the appellces to review the de.
cislon Of the special court of appeals
in the case of Braxtep, executor of
Claiborne against Winslew and Others,
justices of Spottsylvania county, RI
Wash. 81, which was an action ei
debt brought. as in the present ca G,
upon an executors bond against the
securities, to subject them to the pay.
ment of bill of exchange. The suit
was instituted upon the bond at tbs
instance of the indorser of the bill Of
exchange against the executors secu-
rites without having previously OBJ
tanned a Judgment against the execu-
tor upon the bill of exchange here
the two causes differ the relator in
the present case having previously to
the commencement o. this suit obtained
a judgment Gas is suggested in the
replicatlon) against the sdmininistra-
tors for the sum of e ~ to be dischar-
ed by the payment of So, with in
terest and costs. But whether this
judgment was against them personally
or for debt c z sheir intestate, or whe-
Their they were chargabls by that judg.
ment dc bonis propriis, or only dc bo-
mis- testatoris, we arc left in the dark
by the replication. But this perhaps
may be aided by the verdict. shall
Therefore pass Il over for the rresent.