
    SMITH vs. WILSON.
    Eastern District,
    March 1831.
    APPEAL I~'floM THE COUnT OP THE T~RD DISTRiCT, - THE JUDGE THEREOF RRESIrnNG.
    The Court of Probates has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on claims for money which are brought against successions administered by testamentary executors.
    The parties, the cause of action, the pleadings, and the facts of this cause, are the same with the preceding one, except that the former suit commenced by attachment, and, in this, the defendant was held to bail; arid that in this, the exception pendentes lites, was added to the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction. The court below sustained the exception and the plaintiff appealed.
    The Court of Probates has exclusive juriSdictiorL to decide on claims for money which are brought against su'cessjons administered by testa-mentory executors
    Pierce, for appellant. Downs, for appellee.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant sued for a debt of his testator, pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, and averred he was suable in the Court of Probates only. His plea was sustained, and the plaintiff app~aled.

His counsel has referred us to the Code of Practice, 122, 126, 144, 334, 983, 925. We have vainly sought there, any thing in support of his case. The last article quoted, expressly recognises the exclusive jurisdictioi~ of Courts of Probates, to decide on claims for money, which are brought against successions administered by testamentary executors, N. 13.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.  