
    Finney late administrator of Hinds against Moore administrator de bonis non of Hinds.
    Anadmi"n'greíhíquaí. edh¡s and 3,1 administrator de rt-^Orphans’ directed an is-the former ad-had in his sets'ofthe intestate, and wasliaMe to trator de6mis non, for any P™P®rty h»ve come to his hands as administrator, the parties entered, by agreement, an amicable action for that purpose4, which was tried, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for a certain sum, for which judgment was entered. This Court reversed the judgment, because it was contrary to the agreement of the parties. The matters in issue should nave been found, and a certificate Urns*nutted to the Orphans’ Court.
    In Error.
    
      ROBERT FINNET having renounced the administration of the estate of Barbara Hinds, deceased, which had been formerly granted to him, and Abner Moore having been / ° . 7 . • i ■ j appointed administrator de boms non, an issue was directed by the Orphans’ Court, in pursuance of which, they entered into an agreement for the institution of “ an amicable action, in case, to ascertain whether the defendant (Finney) had in his hands any assets of the deceased, and whether he was liable to the plaintiff for any money or property which may have come to his hands, as administrator of said deceased.” The declaration was in assumpsit, for money had and received by the defendant, for the use of the plaintiff. The pleas, non assumpsit, and payment, with leave to give the special matters in evidence.
    The Court having charged the jury, that under this agreement, and in this form'of action, the plaintiff was entitled to recover whatever assets came to the hands of the defendant, as administrator of Barbara Hinds, deceased, which were not administered by him,, nor delivered over to the plaintiff, found a verdict for the plaintiff, for two hundred and thirty three dollars, on which judgment was entered.
    Greenough, for ,the plaintiff in error, contended,
    that the judgment was' erroneous — .1. Because the administrator de bonis non could not recover of the former administrator money which had come to his hands ; though he might recover goods which remained in' specie unadministered. There was no privity between the two administrators, on which the law would raise an assumption. Allen v. Irwin, 1 Serg. Rawle, 549.
    2. Because in this form of action goods remaining in specie unadministered,.could not be recovered. If any action would lie, trover would be_ the proper form.
    
      Carson and Mason, for the defendant in error, answered,
    that there was here such an implied contract as would support the action. Indebitatus assumpsit lies by an executor, against the attorney of an administrator, who had taken out letters of administration before the will was discovered, to recover money received by him belonging to the estate of the testator. A creditor could not maintain a suit against the former administrator, because he has been discharged by the Orphans’ Court. 1 Bac. Ab. 261. 5 Binn. 33. 1 Esp. N. P. 7. Purd. Dig. 495.
   Per Curiam.-

It appears that Robert Finney, who was the administrator of Barbara Hinds, resigned his office of administrator by permission of the Orphans’ Court, who appointed Abner Moore the administrator de bonis non of the said Barbara, and directed an issue to the Court of Common Pleas, to ascertain whether the said Robert Finney had in his hands any assets of the intestate, and whether he was liable to the said administrator de bonis non for any property which may have come to his hands, as administrator aforesaid. In order to have these matters tried, the parties entered an amicable action by agreement, in which the administrator de bonis zion was plaintiff, and Robert Finney, late administrator of Barbara Hinds, was defendant. The jury found for the plaintiff two hundred and thirty three dollars, and the Court r e-ntered judgment for that sum against the defendant. We are of opinion, that this judgment is erroneous, because contrarytothe agreement of the parties. The matters in issue were to be found, and a certificate transmitted to the Orphans’ Court, who would then proceed in the business before them, which had been suspended until the result of the trial in the Court of Common Pleas was made known to them. The judgment rendered by the Court of Common Pleas is therefore to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  