
    Leeke’s Adm'r D. B. N. vs. Beanes.
    
      í < The not return^ ing- an inventory on the estate of ata intestate by his, , administrator, í» not sufficient evidence to charge the adtnmistvatosf with a debt of imites UU$
    Ennon to the General Court. Debt on a bond for the payment of money, dated in. 1707, executed by the intestate of the appellant to the appellee. Payment and plene administravit were pleaded, to which there were the general replications, and issues joined. Thefactswerethe.se: The bond, on which the suit was brought, was executed by Frank Leehe, the obligor, who died intestate, and A, Leehe took out letters of administration on his estate, and gave bond as the law required, for its due administration. S. Leehe died intestate, without having returned an inven-, Tory on the estate of F. Leehe. S. Hepburn, the defendant, (now appellant,) after the death of A. Leehe, took out letters of administration de bonis non on the estate of F. Leehe, and gaye bond for the due administration of the estate of F. Leehe, unadm mistered by A. Leehe. Hepburn, did not return an inventory on the estate of id Leehe within twelve months from taking out the letters de bonis non, nor had he done so at the time of bringing this suit. The question submitted on these facts,to the epurt vvas, wireí , ilieV they were sufficient to charge the defendant below-with the debt for which the suit was instituted? The general court, at October term, 1804, were of opinion they were sufficient, anil gave judgment for tbe plaintiff. The defendant brought the present writ of error.
    The cause was argued in this court before Pqlk, Bu» chavan, Nicholson and Earle, J.
    
      Magmder, for the Plaintiff in error,
    cited Morgan vs„ Slade, ct ux. (ante 38.) Wilson's ex'r. vs.- Slade, e& vx* (ante 281); and Peake’s Evid. 3.45, 34S.
    
      Shaoff, for the Defendant in error,
    cited Swinb. 420; and the act of 1798, ch. 101.
   JUDGMENT REVERSED.  