
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1794.
    Joseph Hecking against Joshua Howard.
    THIS was an action on an administration bond. The breach assigned was, that the plaintiff had recovered in an action of detinue against the defendant as executor of James Howard.
    
    Two questions arose on argument; 1. Whether an action of detinue would lie against executors; 2. Whether detinue was within the condition of an administration bond. ,
    1. Detinue lies for the recovery of goods in specie, and also for damages for the detainer. Bull. N. P. 49. 51. 8 Vin. 41. pi. 1,7. 11 Fin. 245,246. 5 Com. Dig. 239. 8 Fin. 28. 34.
    2. Where there is the least difference between the condition and the breach assigned, the party will not be bound. 2 Bl. Rep. 935. 1 Durnf. £s? East, 287. 1 Str$> 201. 2 Stra. 891. 1171.
    
      Hollingsworth, for the plaintiff.
    
      R. Ridgely, for the defendant.
   The Court

determined that the action of detinue did not come within the condition of an administration bond , and gave judgment for the defendant.  