
    *Stovall’s Executor v. Woodson and Wife.
    Friday, May 31st, 1811.
    Executors — Payment of Legacies — Refunding Bond.— It seems that an executor cannot be compelled to pay a legacy, until bond and security be given by the legatee to refund his due proportion of such debts and demands as may thereafter appear against the estate of the testator.
    The appellees, legatees of Bartholomew Stovall, deceased, brought their suit in chancery, against the executor, in the county court of Powhatan, for a settlement of the administration account, and to recover their share of the balance due the estate. '
    The acting executor by his answer expressed willingness to have a fair settlement by commissioners, “and to deliver to the complainants whatever they might be entitled to of his testator’s estate, on their executing to him a bond of indemnity, such as the law authorizes him as executor to demand, to refund a proper proportion of said property to answer any demand which might afterwards appear against the estate of his testator.”
    After a reference to, and report by, a commissioner, the county court decreed that the plaintiffs recover against the defendant the sum of 911. 6s. ÍOd. 1-2. with 6 per centum per annum interest thereon from the 17th of Sept. 1804, and costs. Upon an appeal to the superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, the chancellor, in vacation, referred the accounts, contained in the record, to Master Commissioner Greenhow for examination, and upon his report, correcting certain errors apparent on the face of those accounts, (to which exceptions had been taken in the county court,) reversed the decree, and rendered another for the sum of 2201. with interest on 1801. 6s. 6d. part thereof, from the 30lh of August, 1806; and the costs in both courts. Tfrom that decree the defendant appealed to this court.
    Wickham, for the appellant.
    Call, for the appellees.
    
      
       Executors — Payment of Legacies — Refunding Bond. - -It is error, though the bill be taken for confessed, to decree against an administrator de horñs non, that he shall pay a legacy, withont requiring the legatee to give bond and security for refunding his “due proportion of any debts or demands which may afterwards appear against the estate of the testator, and the costs attending the recovery thereof." Bootes v. Webb, 4 Munf, 77. To the same effect the principal case is cited in Machir v. Machir, 6 Munf. 267.
      See generally, monographic note on “Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6; monographic note on “Legacies and Devises” appended to Early v. Early, Gilm. 124.
    
   *Friday, Nov. 1st. The president pronounced the following opinion of the court;

“The court being of opinion that there-is no error in so much of the decree of the superior court of chancery as reverses that of the county court, and as decrees the sum therein mentioned to the appellees with costs, is yet of opinion that the said decree is erroneous in this, that the appellees are not directed to give bond and security, according to the provisions of the act of assembly, in such case provided, to refund their due proportion of such debts and demands as might thereafter appear against the estate of the testator of the appellant, as a condition precedent to the payment of the sum decreed as aforesaid : therefore it is decreed and ordered that the same be reversed, &c. and that the cause be remanded1 to the said court of chancery, that the decree may be reformed so as to require bond and security to be given prior to the payment of the sum so decreed.”  