
    Thompson and Wife against The Executors of Youngblood.
    ft is not the duty of an ex-eeutor, to search out the legatee, op entitled ^tiTa share of an cs-enough, that ne is always s-eady, . when called upon, to pay it.
    THIS was an action brought in right of Mrs, Thompson, for her share of her grandfather, Samuel Snee s esT , . r n itri tate. It appeared that the executor ot onee made sale or the effects of the estate, and closed the accounts some time in t^e year jyy g; and always kept the money by him, to pay ovcr tQ those entitled to a distributive share, whenever they * * * should think proper to call for it. The money remained ... . in the executor s hands till it became so much depreciated, as to be worth little or nothing. So that the only question was, who should bear the loss, the plaintiffs, or the executor ?
    For the plaintiffs, it was said, that if the executor had paid over this money in 1778, as soon as he received it, it would have been valuable, as paper money had not then ex-perienceJ a great depreciation; and, therefore, as the executor thought proper to keep it, he oughtto sustain the loss*
    On the other hand, it was answered, that the money was ready always in the executor’s hands, and would have been paid on demand. That a legatee, or person entitled to a distributive share of an estate, was bound in law, to shew his right, and make a demand. It was not the duty of the executor to search out the person so entitled, and make a tender, as if he were an original debtor.
   The Court

(present, Rutledge, Ch. J. Burke, and Bay, Justices)

were clearly of opinion, that it was the duty of a legatee, or other person claiming a legacy, or distributive share of an estate, to make his claim of the executor, and shew his right to receive, before such executor could legally pay over. There was no obligation on the part of the executor, to search out the legatee ; it was enough that he was always ready, when called upon, to pay it.

Verdict for defendants.  