
    Canon v. Abbot, Administrator of Lemuel Moorehouse, Deceased.
    The return of commissioners upon an estate represented insolvent is conclusive against creditors.
    Action on note given by said Lemuel. Plea in bar ■— That on the 8th of January said Moorhouse’s estate was represented insolvent and commissioners appointed to examine the claims of the creditors and to make return in one year; that they have made a return of debts allowed, to the amount of £669; that the time is expired, and this claim was never exhibited nor allowed.
    Reply • — ■ That after said return was made an addition of £80 was made to the inventory of said deceased’s estate; whereby said estate appeared to be solvent and a further time was allowed to the creditors to bring in their claims to the commissioners; who were reappointed, and the plaintiff exhibited this claim in due season to them.
    Defendant rejoins — That said estate is insolvent, and the plaintiff ought to he barred, without that that saidi estate is solvent and sufficient to pay all the debts. Demurrer.
    Judgment • — ■ That the rejoinder is sufficient. The doings of commissioners are conclusive upon the creditors, as to their claims, whether the estate eventually proves to be insolvent or not; otherwise it would be almost impracticable ever to have an estate settled: And it does not appear by the plaintiff’s reply that his claim was ever allowed.
   The case of Ponderson v. Avery, New London, September 1785, administrator of Mrs. Avery settled this point. That was an action of debt on book; the defendant plead that said deceased’s estate was represented insolvent, commissioners appointed, to whom the plaintiff exhibited his account and the same was disallowed by said commissioners. The plaintiff replied, that said estate was not found to he .insolvent, hut was solvent sufficient to pay all the debts. Demurrer. Judgment — That the reply was insufficient. This judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Errors.  