Case Name: THE ADMINISTRATORS OF AARON HAZEN v. THE HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF JOHN TILLMAN
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1846-03
Citations: 5 N.J. Eq. 363
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE ADMINISTRATORS OF AARON HAZEN v. THE HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF JOHN TILLMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
THE ADMINISTRATORS OF AARON HAZEN v. THE HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF JOHN TILLMAN.
A decree against executors, in a suit against them, is no evidence in a subsequent suit against the devisees, of the existence of the debt.
In January, 1839, the administrators of the personal estate of Aaron Hazen, deceased, on a bill theretofore filed by them against the executors of the will of John Tillman, deceased, obtained a decree against the said executors for the payment by them, out of assets guando aodderint, of $469.78.
In 1841 the said administrators of Hazen’s estate filed a bill against the heirs and devisees of the said John Tillman, setting forth the said bill against the executors of his will, and the do cree thereon; and stating that the personal estate of the said John Tillman, deceased, has been exhausted and fully administered by the said executors; that there is no personal estate of the said John Tillman, deceased, to the knowledge of the complainants, from which assets in futuro might come to the iiands of the said executors to be administered ; and that lands of the said John Tillman, deceased, came to the hands of the defendants by devise, which were sold by them ; and praying that they might be decreed to pay the amount of the said decree against the said executors.
The bill was demurred to.
P. D. Vroom, in support of the demurrer,
cited 1 Munf. 455; Greenl. Evid., §§ 535, 536; Phil. Evid. 226.
E. H. Whelpley and H. W. Green, contra,
cited Elm. Dig. 170, 171; 4 Johns. Ch. P. 620; 1 Smith’s Ch. Prac. 526; Mitf. Plead. 59; Greenl. Evid. 591; Saxton 512.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
The question is whether a decree against executors, in a suit against them, is sufficient evidence in a subsequent suit against'the heirs and devisees of the existence of the debt.
A decree of this court is equivalent to a judgment at law. But one who is not made a party, and between whom and the party there is no privity, is not bound by the decree. There is no privity between the executor and the heir or devisee. 1 Paige 35; 1 Munf. 437; 4 Harr, and John. 126, 270.
In the case in Munford, the bill was against the executors and devisees ; no proof of the claim was offered, except a judgment against the executors. The court held it was no proof against the devisees.
The debt of the ancestor, or devisor, should be establish'ed in a suit in which the heirs, or devisees, are parties, and in which they can contest it.
The effect of the demurrer is not to admit the debt, but to submit to the court the question whether, on the fact stated in the bill, that a decree was obtained in a suit against the executors, a decree can be made against the devisees in this suit.
The demurrer is allowed, with leave to the complainants to amend their bill.
Order accordingly.