
    Nixons Admr's. vs. Bullock, Erwin & Co.
    A covenanted to pay B. one hundred dollars in good bailed cotton at his gin in Hickman county on or before a given day. To a suit upon this covenant, he pleaded that he was ready on the day and at the place to deliver the cotton, but that neither B. nor any one for him was thereto receive the same; Held, that the plea ought to have averred, that he was always after the day, and yet was ready to deliver the cotton.
    A verdict, that the defendant had not fully administered &c.> without specifying the amount of assets unadministered, is bad.
    A plea of fully administered, did not aver that all the assets up to the time of filing the plea had been administered, but stated generally that the defendants have fully administered all the goods and chattels rights and credits &c., which had come to their hands tobe administered: Held, that though informal the plea, was substantially good.
    This is an action of covenant, brought by the defendants in error on a contract under seal, by which the intestate of the plaintiffs in error promised on or before the first day of March, 1834, to pay the sum of one hundred dollars in good bailed cotton, at his gin in Hickman county, and the breach assign ed, is, that neither the intestate nor his administrator had done so.
    The pleas are first “that Henry Nixon their intestate did on the 1st day of March, 3 834, have at his gin in Hickman county the amount of one hundred dollars in good bailed cotton ready to be delivered to the plaintiffs and that neither they nor anyone for them was there to recéive the same,” second; “that the administrators since the death of the said Henry, did on the 1st March, 1834, have at the intestates gin in Hickman county one hundred dollars worth of good bailed cotton ready to be delivered to the plaintiffs, but that neither they nor any one for them attended to receive the same.” And third, “that they have fully administered all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits which were of the said Henry Nixon deceased, and which have come to their hands to be administered.
    To the two first pleas there was a demurrer and joinder, and replication and issue to the third. The demurrers were sustained, and upon the trial of the issue, on the plea of plena ad~ ministravit, the jury returned a verdict that the defendant had not fully administered all and singular the goods and chattels rights and credits of their intestate, without specifying the amount not administered in their hands, or finding that they} had a sum sufficient to pay the damages demanded, on which a judgment was givén'by the court below, to reverse which, this writ of error is prosecuted.
    
      T. Washington, for plaintiff in error.
    1st. The demurrer ought not to have been sustained. The terms of the covenant implied necessarily, that the covenanter was to make application at the time and place appointed for the cotton, and, if the covenanter had it at the lime and place, ready to be delivered, that was a compliance on his part. If this be not the construction of the covenant, it puts it in the power of a covenante, in all such cases, to turn a contract for the doing of a specific thing, into a money contract. 3 Yerg. Rep. 463. Peck Rep. 332.
    2nd. The finding upon the plea of fully administered, in this case, is a general one against the plea, but without ascertaining the balance of assets unadministered. No judgment for any particular sum can be entered upon such a finding. 5th Cranch 19; 2 Washington 301.
    
      Jl. M. Clayton, for defendant in error.
   Turley J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The first question is as to the correctness of the decision sustaining the demurrer to the two first pleas. We have no doubt, but that the law was correctly adjudged. To make these pleas good, there should have been an averment, that they, the defendants, or their intestate, were ready on the day specified in the contract to deliver the cotton; that neither the plaintiffs, nor any person for them, were present during the day to receive the same, and that they have always since been ready to deliver the same. This point has been determined in the case of Waters and McAllister, 4 Haywood: and Tiernan v. Napier, Pecks Rep. 189, which leaves the question no longer debatable.

The 2nd question is, as to the correctness of the verdict of the jury, on the issue, upon the plea of fully administered. Tho finding is a general one against the plea, without as-cei'ta^n*11S ^Ie balance of assets unadministered. This unquestionably bad, for no judgment for - any particular sum can be entered on such a finding; this has been settled for so great a length of time, and by so well adjudged cases, that it is not deemed necessary to enter into an investigation of the reasons therefor. See 2 Washington’s Rep. 301. 5 Cranch Rept. 19, and tlie authorities there referred to. Butin answer to this, it is said, that the plea of fully administered is badly pleaded that it is an immaterial plea, and having been found, against the defendants, they are barred thereby, and cannot have a repleader. If this were an immaterial plea, this position is most cleaaly sustained by the authorities referred to by the counsel for the defendants ill error. But we think the plea, though informal, is good, especially after verdict, and that it does not tender an immaterial issue. It is a general plea, that they’the defendants'have fully administered all the goods and chattels rights and credits, of their intestate, which have come to their hands to be administered. This shall be intended to speak, as to the time, when the plea' is filed.

The judgment will therefore be reversed, and the case- re manded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.  