
    Lewis Gill, Escheator, v. R. Douglass, Adm’r.
    The. escheator cannot maintain an action against the administrator of the administrator of a person, who died intestate, leaving no person intitied to his estate under the statute of distributions, for the recovery of a balance, due by the estate ofthe defendant’s intestate, on his administration of the esiate of the first intestate. The escheator stands in the place of distributees; and the act of 1787, enables him to bring an action at law, only against the legal representative of the person, whose estate has escheated.
    p787.aCp.°L. 430.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Earle, at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1831.
    This was au action brought by the escheator for Lancaster District, to recover a balance due by the estate of defendant’s intestate on his administration of the estate of Dr. James Claney, who had died intestate, and, as it was alleged, had left no one intitied to claim his estate as next of kin. The defendant’s intestate had administered on the estate of Claney, and had in his life time received certain assets : After his death, the defendant, as his administrator, accounted for the administration of Claney’s estate ; and a balance was decreed against him by the ordinary, which the defendant agreed to pay. A nonsuit was moved for on the ground; that defendant not being the administrator of Dr. Claney, whose estate was said to have escheated, the plaintiff could not maintain this action. The presiding Judge refused the motion, and the jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant now renewed his motion for a nonsuit in the Court of Appeals.
    Williams, for the motion.
    Defendant may be cited by the administrator de bonis .non, if one should be appointed ,• and a payment to the escheator would not avail him. The same reasons which in all other cases, require the estate to be duly represented, apply here. Dr. Claney’s estate is not represented, and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to maintain this action. The defendant is not protected, for neither a verdict for, nor a verdict against him, would conclude an administrator de bonis non from a future action for the same debt.
    1 M‘C. Cli. 318, 506. 2 Id. 169.
    Clarke, contra.
    
    The act of 1787, was intended to enable the escheator to maintain an action for escheated property against any one in possession of it; and the escheator is substituted not only for distributees, but for the administrator also, where there is none. The defendant has admitted the balance due, and the escheator is by law iutitled to recover it.
   Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The act of the Legislature of 1787, declares that, “ where > any monies, or other persoual estate, shall he found ir. the hands of any executor or administrator, being the property of any person heretofore deceased, or hereafter dying, and leaving no person intitled to claim according to the statute of distribution, and without making disposition of the same, the escheator of the district where such chattels shall be found, or the attorney general, on behalf of the State, shall and may sue for and recover, cither at law or in equity, and shall pay the same into the treasury of this State.” The terms “ shall be found in the hands of any executor or administrator,” plainly import executor or administrator of such deceased person. If the goods of the deceased person, be in the hands of any other than his executor or administrator, or if there be a debt due to the deceased from another person, the statute gives the escheator or attorney general no power to sue for these. They can only be recovered by the executor or administrator of the deceased. The administrator of an administrator certainly does not represent the original intestate, and the assets found in his hands constitute a debt to the legal representative of the first intestate. The legal representative of personal estate is an executor or administrator. The escheator stands in the situation of a distributee. Certainly a distributee cannot sue the debtor of his intestate at law, and this Court has determined that he cannot sue, even in equity, for his estate, unless an executor or administrator be made a party. The assets of the estate of Claney in the hands of the defendant constituted a debt from the estate of Douglass to the legal representative of Claney, and the accounting before the ordinary, could amount to nothing more than an acknowledgement of that debt. The motion for a nonsuit is therefore granted.  