
    KNOXVILLE:
    JULY TERM, 1832.
    Crabaugh vs. Hart, et. al. Adm’r. &c.
    A plea by an administrator of the act of limitations of 1789, ch. 23, is good, without averring that he advertised,;&0. agreeably to the 5th section of said act.
    This was an action of debt against the defendants, as administrators of Hart. The third plea is, the act of 1789, ch. 23, limiting the suits against administrators to two years, without averring that he advertised, &c. agreeably to the 5th section of said act.
    To this plea there is a demurrer; and it was argued the plea was bad, because it did not aver that the administrators had advertised agreeably to the 5th section of the act of 1789, ch. 23.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question raised upon the third plea in this cause underwent a full investigation at Nashville, at the last term of this court, in the case of Hooper vs. Bryant, administratorof Young.

In that case the court determined, that the 5th section of the act of 1789, ch. 23, is only directory, and not a condition precedent to the fourth section. The consequence is, that the third plea in this cause is a good de-fence to the action.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       Ante page 1.
     