
    Carson v. Hood’s executors.
    
      Verdict.
    
    If debt be brought against executors, on simple contract, it will be bad on demurrer, but if they plead to issue, they cannot afterwards make the objection.
    After a verdict, it will be presumed, that everything was done at the trial, which was necessary to support the action, unless the contrary appear upon the record.
    Debt. Plea, nil debet. The principal point in this case was, whether debt would lie against executors, on a simple contract of the testator ?
    
      Bradford, for the plaintiff,
    stated the rule to be, that if the executors demur to the action, they are entitled to judgment; but if they plead to issue, they cannot, afterwards, make the objection; and the following authorities were cited to maintain the distinction. Cro. Eliz. 600, 557; Cro. Car. 187; Cro. Eliz. 121; 1 And. 182; Golds. 106; Leon. 165; Vaugh. 99; 1 Sid. 333; Plowd. 182; Palm. 32; Cro. Eliz. 435, 459; Yelv. 56; 1 Lev 200; 1 Vent. 139; Vaugh. 97.
   The Court,

being unanimously of this opinion, gave judgment for the plaintiff ; having, on a preliminary point, decided, that after a verdict, the will presume everything was done at the trial, which was necessary to support the action, unless the contrary appeared upon the record. 3 Burr.1725; 1729; 1 Wils. 225; 2 Str. 1180. 
      
      
         The proper title of this case is Carson v. Hood et al., executors of Hood. The action was brought to September term 1788, and at July term 1789, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to move for a new trial, on this ground, whether the action is supported by the evidence or not ? A rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, was obtained by Mr. Lewis, but after argument, the tourt discharged the rule aDd gave judgment as above.
     