
    
      [Sunbury,
    
    
      June 27, 1825.]
    MAHAFFEY and others, Administrators of MAHAFFEY, against MAHAFFEY.
    IN ERROR.
    In a suit against administrators, an arbitration bond given by the defendants in their individual capacity is not evidence.
    Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county, where the plaintiffs in error were defendants below.
    The action was brought by James Mahaffey against the defendants as administrators of Thomas Mahaffey, deceased. The plaintiffs and defendants were brothers and children of the intestate, and the plaintiff having a claim against the estate of the father for services performed by him in his lifetime, brought an action on the case for the recovery of damages. In support of the action the plaintifi offered in evidence an arbitration bond executed by Robert, James, John, William, and Moses Mahaffey, children of Thomas Mahaffey, deceased, whereby they bound themselves each to the other in the penalty of two thousand dollars, to abide the award which should be made by certain arbitrators therein named, touching the claim which each of them had against the estate of their father. To this evidence the counsel for the defendants objected, but the court admitted it, and an exception was taken to tl^eir opinion.
    
      
      M‘Clure and Burnside, for the plaintiffs in error.
    
      Campbell, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The arbitration bond, was not given by the defendants as administrators of their father, but in their individual capacity, and an action might have been supported on it against them individually. But neither that bond, nor the award can be evidence against them, in the character of administrators. The bond is a sealed instrument, and consequently no evidence to support an action on the case, and as to the award, it can be no evidence to affect the estate of the intestate, because it was not made in consequence of a submission by the defendants as adminstrators. The plaintiff has mistaken his remedy. He should have brought his action on the bond. But he was at liberty to prosecute his claim against his father’s estate, by an action against the adminstrators, if he thought proper. In that case, however, it was necessary to support his action by other evidence than the bond and award. It is .the opinion of the court, that there was error in receiving the evidence. The judgment is therefore to be reversed and a venire de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded*  