
    Booth’s Executors v. Armstrong.
    October Term, 1796.
    Verdict — Certainty—Plea of Piene Administravit— Case at Bar, — The defendant pleaded a special piene administravit, and thathehath not, nor had any goods, &c. except to a certain value, which were not sufficient to satisfy the judgments mentioned in the plea. Replication, that the defendant hath and had, &c. goods, &c. more than sufficient to satisfy the said judgments, whereof he could have satisfied theplaintiff. Verdict “for the debt in the declaration mentioned.” This is insufficient: the verdict ought to have found that the defendant had goods, &c. more than sufficient to satisfy the judgments, whereof he could have satisfied the plaintiff, or the value of the assets, if they were not sufficient.
    This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Winchester. It was an action of debt, brought by the appellee, upon a bond given by the testator. Plea, setting forth sundry judgments obtained against the defendant, and “that he hath fully administered, all the goods of the testator which had come to his hands to be administered, and that he hath, not, nor had &c. any goods &o. except the value of ^133; 3: 3, which are not sufficient to satisfy the said judgments’’ &c. Replication, “that the defendant hath, and on the day of commencing this suit had divers goods &c. more than sufficient to satisfy the said judgments in the said plea mentioned, whereof he could have satisfied the plaintiff for his debt aforesaid.”
    The verdict was in the following words viz: we of the jury find for the plaintiff, the debt in the declaration mentioned, and one penny damages. Judgment de bonis testatoris &c. &c. si non the costs de bonis propriis.
    Wickham for the appellant.
    It is clear law, that upon a special or general plene administravit, it is necessary, that the jury, if they find for the plaintiff, should ascertain the amount of the assets. This verdict finds only that the truth of the issue is with the plaintiff, but it does not ascertain the value of the assets unadmin-istered.
    ^Marshall for the appellee.
    I shall not controvert the doctrine stated by Mr. Wickham, with this qualification that if the jury find assets sufficient to satisfy the debt, they need not find the precise amount of the assets. The reason of the rule is obvious, and will warrant this limitation of it. Now in this case, the plaintiff having replied assets sufficient to satisfy the judgments mentioned in the plea, as well as the debt in question, and the jury having found the whole issue due for the plaintiff, they have in fact found, that the defendant had assets sufficient in his hands. It was therefore unnecessary to ascertain the exact amount of the assets. The verdict is substantially right, and the court will mould it into form.
    Wickham. I do not think that the court can with the most liberal disposition to support this verdict, consider it a special finding, responsive to the issue; for if the defendant had but one penny more than sufficient to satisfy the judgments, it falsified the plea, and therefore it was incumbent upon the jury to find the issue in favor of the plaintiff. But it is agreed, that the plaintiff ought not to have a judgment for the whole debt, unless the court can be satisfied that there are assets sufficient to pay it.
    
      
      Verdict — Certainty—Plea of Piene Administravit.— A verdict, upon the plea of piene administravit, must ascertain the amount of assets in the hands of the executor, to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon the verdict.
      The principal case is cited, in support of this proposition, in Fairfax v. Fairfax, 5 Cranch 21; Gardner v. Vidal, 6Rand. 107; Gordon v. Justices of Frederick, 1 Munf. 14.
      See, in accord, Eppes v Smith, 4 Munf. 466; Rogers V. Chandler, 3 Munf. 65; Sturdivant v. Raines, 1 Leigh 481. See foot-note to Richards v. Tabb, 4 Call 522.
      Executors and Administrators — Plea of Piene Admin-istravit. — The principal case is cited in Gordon v. Justices, 1 Munf. 12, for the proposition that if the executor or administrator plead either a general or special piene administravit, he is only liable to the amount of the assets proved to be in his hands. See generally, monographic note on “Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6.
    
   The Court was of opinion that the verdict ought to be set aside “as being uncertain and insufficient in not finding on the issue, that the appellant had goods and chattels which were of the decedent at the time of his death in his hands to be administered, more than sufficient to satisfy the judgments in the appellant’s plea set forth whereof he could have satisfied the appel-lees demand, or the value of the said goods and chattels, if not sufficient to satisfy the said demand.”

Judgment reversed, verdict set aside, and the cause remanded.  