
    The State use of Wilcoxen vs. Wootton.
    in an action on atinnimtmnon bom! executed ori nice,tau-utcm«« of""^/a^ffj^ SútSv^um'míil tr»u>.*, &«. miiie replications, *k-ce^id throughout as GeorgeW,vA\n-~ w.si-ca.ud Mtho*. Jíy/r. ihfdtíciui» «■.ioiim], Owt George t>P, wus J"*wnt,al¡^ nní°,r¿t »3atiiv“5 thif^ihTm’u^rf ;C1'a» 1!! m lilt* bond! ho tlfíClr» dans, one (‘r ii‘ia Tile piaiimlrVfli-iv áwi'é'V.nuí nYoJ i„ the bond, known bS «hw »Hint of Anthony ^V;na issürso«‘i»>mi, t'¡“‘ b/ictaú m? irtl“Thn™^iuimin> ceiled1 n!aiuóilíd’ Al«i <!<!««■, * íbar* tin, GeoigeiFüi^-fii^ií. ii****líw^ií n. ih<.~ bom!, and (he An-thmv f’ cu in iht* invuttt*-wt're ‘Do same jktsoj,*.; W ami T Stheiid-ra4uit“Uura* 1
    scanty coart refused to permit the evidence lo be siren, bat on appeal rcw®d,
    
    Appeal from Montgomery County Court. An action of debt was brought, on the 32d of November 1811, on an administration bom!, executed to the state on the 10th of ^ , , , ' r* i a ' &<>ve*ribcr 1788, by Jiltih rrticvxen» i noma* oweanngen^v, J - • ‘ George Fíitcoxen, ami Milliard Woolton, (the delendant and now appellee,) conditioned, that if the above bound Ruth micoxen and Thomas Swearingen, administrators of ail and singular the goods, chattels and credits, George Wihoxen, late of Montgomery county, deceased, do make, &c. and concluded in the usual form. The de-feudant pleaded general performance, and the act of 1729, ch. ZD* s, &i,-minting the tune within which actions on administration and testamentary bonds shall be brought, The plaintiff» by the replication to the first plea, stated V ‘ - * • *f r < that George M-ilcoxen. otherwise called ¿Inthomj n ih.Qxen ° ^ *■' ’ of, &c. deceased, died intestate, leaving a widow and 7 ^ children, amongst others Anthony, for whose use this suit is brought. That administration on tiie estate of tjie said George Milcoxen, otherwise called Anthony Wihoxen, was granted to Ruth hilcoxen, and Thomas who entered into bond, &c. and returned an inventory amounting to ¿6'227 11 1, which sum remained to be ed amongst the widow and five children, whereoi the widow was entitled to a third. That the one fifth of the personal estate of the said George, otherwise called /lntlwnyrih-- . - • • • ^ u in live parts, to be divided amona* his five children, after . • ° •• the widow’s thirds deducted, amounted to ¿6S0 6 9, be longing to the said Anthony, for whose use this suit brought, as one of tire heirs and representatives of the said George, otherwise called Sntheny, the intestate, said sum the administrators had not paid, &c. The cation to the second plea stated, that the said Anthony, the endorsement of the original writ mentioned, was an infant under the age of 21 years, and while so an infant on the 1st of September 1794, removed to parts beyond ,, . . ;. . ... . ^ ^ the seas» viz» m the state of yifginitn where he continued , ^ ' nntil the 1st ol October 1811, when he returned into this • state, and that within six years next after his return, u ' wit, on, &c. the original writ was sued forth. The defendant rejoined to the first replication, that George mi-eoxea, named in the bond on which this suit was brought, and on whose estate letters of administration were grant-ltd, was not called or known by the name of Anthony Wil-eoxen, and that no letters of administration were ever granted to the said Ruth and Thomas; that no inventory on the said intestate's estate, mentioned in the said bond, ever was returned, i. c. To the second replication the defendant rejoined, that the original writ was not issued within six years after the said Anthony arrived at the age of 21 years, and came in the state as aforesaid. Issues were joined; and at the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence, that the name ‘•'■George Wileoxen,” in the original bond in this case, where the said name follows immediately the words chattels and credits of,,” and precedes immediately the words ‘■•late of Montgomery county, deceased,” in the condition of the said bond, is in the proper hand-writing of the defendant, one of the obligors in the bond. The plaintiff then offered to prove, that the George Wileoxen, deceased, named ip the condition of the Oiind, was known by the name of Anthony Wileoxen; that Ruth Wileoxen and Thomas Swearingen, obligors in the bond, never were executors or administrators on the estate of any other deceased but the one named in the condition of the bond, and never had from the orphans court any letters testamentary or of administration except those lefer-red to in the bond, and never returned any other inventory than the one hereinafter referred to. And also offered to prove, by one of the appraisers whose name is signed to the said inventory, and by the register of wills, that the said inventory was returned by them as administrators of the said deceased, mentioned in the condition of the bond, and were assets of the said deceased. And also offered to prove by parol evidence, that the George Wileoxen, deceased, mentioned in the condition of the bond, and the Anthony Wileoxen mentioned in the said inventory, were one and the same persons, And offered to read, to the jury the said inventory, stated to be “an inventory of the goods and,chattels of Jlnihony Wileoxen, late of Montgomery county, deceased,” and signed by certain persons as the nearest of kin, by certain creditors, and by the appraisers, and proved on the 1!ill of February 1789, by Ruth Wileoxen and Thomas Sioearingen, administrators, of Anthony Wileoxen, deceased, before the register of wills of Montgomery county, To the admission of the evidence above' offered, the defendant objected; and the Court, ] Harwood, and Bidgely, A. J.] refused to permit it to be given; and were of opinion, and so directed the jury, that the inventory offered by the plaintiff cannot be admitted as evidence to charge the defendant for assets alleged to have come to the hands of the administrators, unless it shall appear to the jury that the intestate was called and known by the name of George fVihoxe.n, as well as Anthony Wilcoxen; and that the bond itself, and the evidence above stated, is not sufficient evidence of that fact. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdicl and judgment being for the defendant, this appeal was prosecuted by the plaintiff.
    The caitse was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Nr-SHOlson, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J.
    
      Taney, for the Appellant.
    The name of George was inserted in the bowl instead of Anthony. There was no evidence what was the true name. The parlies called him George, others called him Anthony, if a man signs a bond by a wrong name, it may be said he is called as well by one name as another. 4 Bac. Ab. tit. Misnomer and Addition, (B) (and notes.) He is estopped from denying the name signed. 10 Via. Ab. 403. The principie here is the same as if the obligors had called themselves by different names. They named the deceased by a wrong same, and they are bound by it.
    
      F. S. Key, for the Appellee,
    if the evidence offered were admitted, it would be letting in parol proof to deny the record. The estate administered on is different from the estate on which the plaintiff claims. An attempt was made to prove that the inventory was on the estate of a different person from what it purports to be. If the deceased had been known as well by the name of George as that of Anthony, it would be different. The replication attempts to set it out, but there is no proof of the fact. The defendant in his rejoinder denies that he was called by both names. The defendant might be estopped from denying his own signature, but there is nothing to estop him from saying the deceased was not the person named in the bond,
    
      One of the issues was on the act of limitations, and the itirv have found that issue for the defendant. This puts tne case at rest.
    
      Taney, in reply.
    The verdict is general, and being for the defendant, went to all the issues Whether limitations barred or not, the plaintiff, under the opinion of the court, could not recover. The replication states expressly that the deceased was called as well by the name of George as Jhitkony; and the rejoinder refers to the name in the bond. There was an attempt ib connect the inventory with the bond, to show that it was the inventory on the estate Upon which letters of administration had been granted. The evidence was not rejected because it was not sufficient, but because there was no evidence that he was called as well by the one name as the other. The obligors gave the name to the deceased, and they are estopped to> deny he was not called by both names. The inventory is the act of the administrators, and their miscalling the deceased shall not benefit them. It is their act, and others are not to be injured thereby.
   JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED,  