
    Bledsoe, Executor of Harris, vs. Huddleston.
    When one executor is absent on a journey for a temporary purpose, intending to return, a creditor of the testator cannot sue the co-exeeutor alone under our acts of assembly.
    To authorize the issuance of a writ against one executor, where there are two, one must be removed out of the jurisdiction by a change of residence.
    Gore and Bledsoe were the acting executors of Harris. Gore left the county of Overton on a trading excursion to New Orleans, with an intention of returning, at that time being the clerk of Overton county court. He remained at New Orleans some six or eight weeks and returned. During his absence, Huddleston»eued out a writ against bis co-executor, Bledsoe. Bledsoe plead these facts in abatement; the plea was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. There being other pleas and issues, they were passed upon by' a jury, who rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion was made for a new trial and overruled, and judgment given against defendant; from which defendant prosecuted an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court.
   Cateon, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Gore, the co-executor, was absent for some six or eight weeks to New Orleans. During his absence, Bledsoe was sued alone as executor of Harris, and recovered against. The acts of 1826, ch. 38, and 1827, ch. 84, provide in case one of the executors has removed, (as in cases of attachment,) the one within the jurisdiction may be sued. Removal does not mean temporary absence on a journey, but change of residence. Gore had not changed his residence; was clerk of the county court of Overton at the time, and the process of the law could have reached him. The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.

Judgment reversed.  