
    John Gage, Sen. vs. Adm’r. of Col. H. Johnson.
    One Co-Administrator, as well as a Co-Executor, may discharge a deb;, due to his intestate.
    ThIS was an action of assumpsit on an open account, amounting to 8865 59, several items of which were entered in plaintiff’s book, subsequent to tbe date of a receipt in full of his account; and some of the items were charged to intestates children by name, all of whom were living with him, ancí only one of them of age. The items objected to in the account were equal to $53.
    
    The defendant offered a note drawn by plaintiff, and made payable to the. administrators of the deceased in discount. The defendant produced a receipt from one of the: administrators, acknowledging that this note was satisfied to three or four dollars.
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, to the amount of 8808.
    A motion was now made for a new trial on two grounds:
    1st. That the jury had allowed the items charged anterior to the receipt in full, as well as such as were charged to the children by name.
    2nd. That the receipt'signed by one of the administrators was not a discharge of the debt due by tbe plaintiff.
   Mr. Justice. Huger

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

it appears that the items objected to, when added to the balance due on the note, amount precisely to the difference between the amount of the account and the verdict. It is unnecessary therefore to notice further the first ground.

That one executor could discharge a debt due to his testator, has never been denied; sdme doubt however, formerly existed as to the power of a co-administrator. But in the case of Williard vs. Fenn,---after repeated arguments the Court of King’s Bench, ruled that a co-administrator was possessed of the same power in this respect as a co-executor. This has been regarded as settled doctrine ever since, and is not now to.be disturbed.

McKibbin, for the motion.

Williams, contra.

The motion is refused.

Justices Colcock, Richardson and Gantt, concurred.  