
    
      John Clarke, administrator de bonis non of James Bowers, vs. E. A. West, administratrix of H. R. West.
    
    Under the Ordinary’s Act of 1839, all appeals from the Ordinary, on matters of account, lie to the court of Equity; and no appeal, on such matters, can be heard in the Common Pleas.
    
      Before Frost, J. at Colleton, Spring Term, 1845.
    James Bowers'died in July, 1841, and'administration of his estate was granted to H. R. West in March. H. R. West died in May, 1842, and administration of his estate was granted to E. A. West, the appellant. John Clarke married the widow of James Bowers, and administration of his estate was granted to Clarke in August, 1842. The appellee, John Clarke, cited^ the appellant, E. A. West, in the Court of Ordinary, to account-'for H. R. West’s administration of the estate .of Bowers. In December, 1842, the Ordinary made a decree on the accounts, charging the estate of West with the sum of $1,329. In this sum was included $400, and interest, the amount of a note of W. W. Williams •& Co. payable to Bowers, which was charged against the estate of West, on the ground that by his negligence it had not been collected from the makers, who, in the spring of 1843, became insolvent. The issue presented to the jury on the pleadings was, whether the estate of West should be.charged with the amount of that note, by reason oí any negligence on his part while administrator, in prosecuting payment of the note, whereby it was lost to the estate of Bowers. All the parties’ had beeii cited before the Ordinary at the hearing when the decree was made, and appeared by their attorneys ; but no evidence was then offered to exonorate the estate'of West. The •appellant produced witnesses to prove that West had not been guilty of any negligence. It was objected that, on ■the trial of the issue in the Court of Common Pleas, no other testimony could be adduced than such as was offered in the Court of Ordinary. The objection was overruled, and witnesses were examined.
    The jury found a verdict for the appellant,- for the sum ■of the note and interest, with which the estate of West had been charged in the decree of the Ordinary.
    John Clarke appealed, and now moved for a new trial, on grounds which, as they were not considered by the Court of Appeals, it is deemed unnecessary to state.
    
      Henderson, for the motion.
    
      Cam, contra.
   Curia, fer Frost, J.

On the reading of the brief ait objection was suggested by the Court, which was not made in the case, that under the Act of 1839, 11 Stat. 42, the subject of the appeal is referred to the court of Equity; and that this Court has no jurisdiction. By that Act it is provided, “if any person or persons shall think themselves aggrievedby any judgment, sentence, decree, determination, denial or order of any of the Courts of ordinary, it shall and may be lawful for such person to appeal therefrom, to the Court of Common Pleas, or Equity.” If the appeal should be from any “judgment, &c. relative to any last will or testament,” the appeal shall be to the Court of Common Pleas. If the appeal should be “ on a matter of ac^ count, the appellant shall docket the case in the Court of Equity for hearing at its next term.” “If the Court should modify the said decree, it may order the Commissioner to re-state the accounts,” (fee. The subject of appeal from the Court of Ordinary, in this case, was an item of the account between H. R. West, the appellant’s intestate, and the estate of James Bowers, of which he was administrator, in which the appellant’s intestate was charged with a large balance. It is properly within the terras of the Act, “ a matter of account,” and appropriately a subject of Chancery jurisdiction. The convenience of directing an appeal, in such a matter, to that Court, is suggested and provided for by the Act, in that “ if the Court should modify the decree” of the Ordinary, “ it may order the commissioner to re-state the accounts.” In many cases this may be necessary ; and it may be important to the expeditious, as well as the satisfactory, adjustment of the various interests in the subject of the account, that it should be done under the immediate direction of that Court. The practice of the Common Law Court is not adapted to such relief; so that it could only be effected after frequent and protracted appeals. The advancement of justice recommends the construction, required also by the terms of the Act, that appeals from the Ordinary, in cases like the present, should be directed to the court of Equity. For want of jurisdiction, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and that the whole proceedings be set aside and vacated.

Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Ward-law, JJ. concurred.  