
    Eastman v. Chapman.
    In the Court below,
    David Chapman, Plaintiff; Mart Eastman and Benjamin Bosworth, Administrators of Ehenezer Eastman, deceased, Defendants.
    Á covenant, m uf general ap-Whereby tlíe Wmselfb and es administrators, to provide meat and drink for the apprentice, extends to the administrators.
    Where several breaches are alleged, and a discharge pleaded as to part, and issue taken as to the residue, and a general verdict for the plaintiff, the Court will presume the verdict to have been for such breaches only, as were not covered by the Special plea.
    
      * JPjjjg was m aet}on brought on the covenants, in an indenture of apprenticeship, by which the intestate of defendants, on hi's part, bound himself and his adminh-tratorst to furnish the apprentice with meat, drink, lodging, cloathing, &c. till he should arrive to the age of twenty , , . . one }'cars- f he suit was commenced in August, 3 70⅜.
    
      1802.
    The ⅛ R-ndants pleaded, as to any breach that happened in the life-time of the deceased, a written dis-1 t charge from the plaintiff, dated the 3d of March, 179/, of all demands against the estate of the deceased to that time : And as to the residue, they pleaded not guilty,
    
    A demurrer was taken to the plea in bar ; and it ivas adjudged sufficient. Issue was taken on the plea of not guilty; and a general verdict was found, that the defendants were guilty, in manner andform,, as the plaintiff, in his declaration, had alleged. Damages were assessed. The defendants filed a motion in arrest, which was adjudged insufficient.
    In the writ of eyror, the general error was assigned.
    Edwards, (of New-Haven) for the plaintiffs in error,
    contended,
    1. That the declaration is insufficient, for that the covenant, in this case, is personal. When an apprentice is bound, the parent or guardian confides in the master himself, and cannot be supposed to bind the apprentice to the master’s executors or administrators. The apprentice, therefore, on the death of the master, becomes discharged, and, of course, the apprenticeship is at an end. He cited, in proof of this position, King and Sfueen v. Prat, 
       King v. Peck, 
      
       and Baxtet v. Beru-field. 
      
    
    2. That the discharge of all demands against the estate of the deceased, must be a bar to the whole claim of the plaintiff, as the defendants were liable only as administrators, so far as they had estate of the deceased.
    3. That the verdict, being general, covers all the breaches ; and, therefore, the jury may have assessed damages for the breaches, for which a discharge was given.
    Backus, (of Pomfret) for the defendant in error,
    argued, that the deceased bound himself, and his administrators, to provide meat, &c. ; that this covenant would hold the administrators, as long as they had the estate of the deceased ; and that, though where an apprentice was bound to learn a particular trade, or mystery, the death of the master should dissolve the contract, yet, in this case, the apprenticeship was general. No art, or trade, was contemplated ; and, therefore, the covenant continued, 
       This covenant being to find meat, drink, 8cc. the administrators are liable, as though the deceased had thus bound himself to provide for any other purpose.
    As to the third point, he contended, that the Court ought notv to presume, that the jury found damages only for the breaches not covered by the special plea.
    
      
      
         12 Mod. 27.
    
    
      
       1 Salt. 66.
    
    
      
      
         2 Stra. 1266. Sec 3 Bac. Abr. 555, 6, 7.
      
    
    
      
      
         4 Bac. Abr. 579, 3 Bac. Abr. 95, 6. Sid. 215 pl. 21.
    
   The Court

affirmed the judgment, Daggett and Smith, Asts. excused themselves from judging, on the ground of their being counsel in such a case, at Fairfield.  