
    Charles Boggan, Administrator of Cornelius Boggan, deceased, vs. Robert M. Walter.
    An administrator is bound to account on final settlement, for all the property of 'his intestate, returned in his inventory; unless he show a sufficient excuse for its nonproduction.
    A decree of the probate court, holding an administrator liable for a slave embraced in his inventory, which it was in proof a son of his, (the administrator’s,) of the age of thirty-five years, and insolvent, had run off into the neighborhood of Benton, in this state; and which the administrator merely advertised as a runaway, and used no active steps to secure or obtain, and did not show that the paper in which he advertised, had currency at Benton ; was held to be correct.
    Whether it is the proper mode of making an administrator liable for a slave, a portion of the assets of the edtate received by him, for a distributee of the estate to object to his final account, because he is not charged with such slave; and for the probate court to hear evidence on the objection, and decide as to his liability, and charge the administrator therewith accordingly— Query ?
    
    On appeal from the probate court of Monroe county; Hon. Nathan L. Morgan, judge.
    Charles Boggan, administrator of Cornelius Boggan, deceased, filed his account for final settlement on the first Monday of August, 1847. Thereupon Robert M. Walter, being interested in the distribution of the estate, by his counsel excepted to the account, because a negro boy, John, appraised at five hundred dollars, was not charged to the administrator in the same; and after argument, the court decreed that the administrator should be charged with him; to which the administrator excepted, and filed his bill of exceptions embodying all the evidence.
    It shows that Walter read in evidence the order of court appointing Boggan administrator, and that he gave bond and qualified; the inventory of appraisement, and the proceedings thereon, in which the slave, John, was included. He then read the report of the administrator, stating in substance, that the boy, John, had run away, and he had not recovered him,'and despaired of being able to do so.
    He then proved by John Echols, that he saw Mr. Joel G. Boggan in possession of a negro boy in Chickasaw county, Mississippi; that said boy was a stout, good looking boy, black, about twenty-five or twenty-six years of age; his upper ' front teeth decayed; he did not know the name of the boy; Mr. Boggan inquired the way to Greensboro’, and he gave it to him.
    T. W. Williams also proved, that in the summer or fall of 1845, he made a, proposition to Charles Boggan, at the request of John Goodwin, that if he would pay or secure the debt against his intestate in favor of the ‘estate of John W. Cook, that he, Goodwin, would not take any steps to make him liable for the negro boy, John, at the same time informing him that Goodwin would be able to prove that Joel G. Boggan had taken said negro from the county. The administrator admitted he had heard that before, but that he had no instrumentality in the removal of the negro.
    J. J. Kelly described the slave, John, so as to" identify him with the boy seen by Echols, in ,the possession of Joel G. Bog-gan.
    Joel G. Boggan stated, that he last saw the boy in the town of Benton, in Yazoo county, but objected to answer who carried him there; when asked as to the part Charles Boggan took in carrying away the boy, he denied any. participation on his part.
    It was also proved, that Joel G. Boggan was thirty-five years old, a man of family; was wholly insolvent, and the son of the administrator. And that the administrator had advertised John as a runaway in the Mississippi Advertiser, a newspaper published in Monroe county, and offered a reward for him. ‘This was all the testimony. The administrator appealed.
    
      Lindsay and Copp, for appellant,.
    Cited Fonbl. Eq. 435 ; Rowth v. Howell, 3 Vesey, Jr., 565; 2 Lomax, Ex. 229; Story on Bailm. § 70, et seq.; Churchill v. Lady Ho¡bson, 1 Peere-Williams, 241; 1 How. 561 ; 7 lb. 95 ; Bélchier v. Parsons, Amb. 219; 5 Yesey, 843; 3 Atk. 480; 17 Mass. R. 479 ; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 619; 1 Verm. 144; Berry v. Parke. 3 S. & M. 639; Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 1; H. & H. 414, sec. 96; Crosse v. Smith, 7 East, 246.
    
      John Goodwin, for appellee,
    Cited Crosse v. Smith, 7 East, 246; Story on Bailm. § 174; Fonbl. Eq. B. 2, ch. 7, § 4; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1269, n. 2; § 1276; 5 Yesey, 839 ; 11 lb. 333; 16 lb. 477 ; 2 Chan. Rep. 114; 3 lb. 94, 95; Phillips v. Phillips, 2 Freem. Ch. Cas. 11; 3 Mylne & Craig, 490-496; H. & H. 411.
   Mr. Justice Claytox

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case is, whether a slave which was appraised and returned in the inventory by the administrator, should be charged to him in his final account 1 The excuse for his failure to include him in the final accouut was, that he had absconded, and could not be recovered.

The facts were, that a son of the administrator, then about thirty-five years of age, and insolvent, had carried off the negro, and probably disposed of him, but without the knowledge or consent of the administrator, so far as the testimony shows. The son himself testified, that he last saw the negro in Benton, in this state, but refused to tell what afterwards became of him. A reward was offered by the administrator in an advertisement published in a newspaper in Aberdeen, for the recovery of the slave, but it does not appear that any farther efforts were used by him for his apprehension.

An administrator is bound to use good faith in the management of the estate, and to the exercise of such prudence and caution as a judicious man, looking to his own interests, would exercise in regard to his own aifairs. Bailey v. Dilworth, 10 S. & M. 409.

In this case, it does not appear that the administrator did more than to offer a reward for the apprehension of the slave. It is in proof that he was informed that his son had carried off the negro, before steps were taken to render him liable. It is hardly to be believed that a man of ordinary prudence would not, under the same circumstances, have used greater efforts for his recapture. Good faith demanded that he should have instituted inquiry, either in person or by agent, in the neighborhood where the slave was last seen. There was no evidence that the newspaper in which the advertisement was made, had circulation in Benton or its vicinity. From all the circumstances, therefore, the administrator was properly held accountable for the value of the slave.

No objection was taken in argument to the mode pursued in this case to render him liable. We shall express no opinion on that point, but leave it open, until we may be called upon to decide it.

Judgment affirmed.  