
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1806.
    Kelly’s Administrators v. Thomson and Howard.
    ^13 defendant sets off credits which he might apply to the demand, or not, at his option, and which the plaintiff was not bound to allow without his consent, the plaintiff shall have full costs, and shall not be restrained to summary process costs, should the demand be reduced by the discount within the summary jurisdiction of the court.
    Where the plaintiff sues as administrator, and malíes a proferí of the letters of administration, the pleading over to the action by the defendant, admits that the plaintiff is executor, or administrator, and capable of bringing an action in that character.
    Motion to set aside a decree on sum. pro.
    
    Petilion and process on a promissory note, before TrezevanT, J., in Sumter district. Plaintiff proved the note, and closed. A nonsuit was moved for on behalf of the defendant, forasmuch as the plaintiff had not produced letters of administration, to entitle him to maintain the action. Overruled. Defendants then produced receipts, which being allowed and deducted from plaintiff’s demand, left a balance of eighty.four cents only, for which sum and costs the decree was given. The receipts were for payments on account received by the intestate, not endorsed on the note. It did not appear that the plaintiff was cognusant of the receipts, or satisfied that he ought to admit them in discount.
    Richardson, in support of the motion,
    insisted that the plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited, for want of producing the letters of administration. Bui, at all events, he was not entitled to costs, and the decree ought to be set aside as to the costs. The A. A. 1747, P. L. 214, for the trial of small and mean causes, declares, that all suits for the recovery of any debt to the value of £20, current money, £2, 17s. Id. sterling, or $12,24, shall be tried by justices of peace; and if any one shall prosecute any action in any other court, and shall not recover above £20, current money, he shall lose his costs of suit. Cited Morg. Ess. 317.
    Witherspoon, for the plaintiff.
    The defendant might have demurred, for want of a profert of the letters of administration, or he might have pleaded that plaintiff was never administrator. Having pleaded over to the action, he has admitted the right of the plaintiff to sue in the character he has assumed, and was afterwards estopped to deny it. Cited 2 Dali. 100. The plaintiff’s demand was reduced by discounts produced by defendants, which the plain» tiff was not bound to admit, and, therefore, plaintiff was entitled to 7 7 7 * costs, notwithstanding the balance due him was under £20, currency of 1747.
   Waties,'J.,

delivered the opinion of the court,

(GkimKe, Waties, Bay, Brevabd, and Wilds, Justices.)

28th April, 1806'. The opinion which will be declared in the case of Reynold’s Executors v. Torrance, will decide the first question, as to the letters of administration, that it was not necessary to produce them. The defendant had not made it necessary, but had dispensed with that necessity ; and, therefore, the motion for a nonsuit was properly refused. As to the costs, the determination of this court, in the case of Hall v. Williams, must govern this point. .The real demand of the plaintiff was above £20, old currency. It was not in his power to have allowed the discounts, if the defendant had been opposed to it. Besides, as administrator, he was not bound to have done so, if defendants’were willing. The act of 1747 must be construed to relate to recoveries, independent of the discount law, which passed in 1759.

Motion refused.  