
    *Porter’s Executors v. Arnold and Others.
    October, 1825.
    Executors — Appeal—Bond.—On. an appeal by executors, from a decree in favor of distributees or legatees, for their proportions of the estate, the executors ought to give bond and security.
    This was an appeal depending in the Court of Appeals, between Porter’s executors and Arnold and others, in which the appellees had obtained a decree in the Court of Chancery, as legatees of Samuel Porter, deceased, for their respective legacies. The decrees were rendered against both executors severally; and one of them appealed at the time of rendering the decree. The appeal was allowed without security, because the appellant was an executor. The other executor, afterwards, was allowed an appeal by the Court of Appeals, upon condition of giving bond and security in double the amount of the decree against him.
    Harrison, for the appellees,
    moved the Court, that the executor, who had appealed without giving security, should be ruled to give security as his co-executor had done.
    October 21.
    
      
      See monographic note on '“Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6; foot-note to McCauley y. Griffin. 4 Gratt.' 9; footnote to Wilson v. Wilson, 1 Hen. & M. 16.
    
   JUDGE CABELE,

delivered the opinion of the Court.*

This suit was prosecuted by the legatees of Samuel Porter, against Jesse Withers and Samuel Porter, executors of S. Porter, deceased, for the recovery of their respec-live legacies. Decrees were rendered against both executors severally; and at the time of rendering the decree, Jesse Withers appealed, and the appeal was allowed without security, because he was an executor. Afterwards, S. Porter, the other executor, was allowed an appeal by this Court, upon condition of giving bond and security in double the amount of the decree against him. Thé appellees *now move that Jesse Withers shall be ruled to give bond and security also.

The condition upon which Samuel Porter was allowed an appeal, seems to have determined that the other executor could not appeal without security. In the. case of Sherman v. Christian, 1 Rand. 393, this subject was examined, and an appeal allowed to an executor, without security, as to so much of the decree as was founded on a claim against his testator, although the decree was personal as to the executor, in respect to the assets in his hands. The reasons upon which that decision went, do not apply to the case of legatees or dis-tributees suing an executor for their proportions of the estate. In such case, there is no demand asserted against the testator; nor is his estate at all affected by the decree. It is founded wholly on the personal responsibility of the executor, for the assets in his hands; and is like the case of a judgment against an executor for a devastavit, in which the executor is bound to give security on an appeal. Wilson v. Wilson’s adm’r. 1 H. & M. 16.

The security asked for, should be required in this case:  