
    Isaac Clark and Another, Administrators, versus, John May.
    Where administrators neglected to procure the stay of an execution against the estate of then- intestate, and his chattels were afterwards sold on such execution, the estate being insolvent, they had no right of action against the officer who served the execution.
    Trover for the conversion of a horse. The action was submitted to the decision of the Court on the following facts agreed by the parties: —
    
      Isaac Clark, Jun., the plaintiff’s intestate, in his lifetime, commenced an action against one Daniel jLllen, and pending that suit died. Fourteen days after his death, the plaintiffs were duly appointed administrators of his estate, and came into Court and took upon themselves the prosecution of the suit, which was referred by a rule of the Court. After sundry continuances, the referees made, their report, which was accepted, and in August, 1813, judgment thereupon rendered in favor of Allen against the goods and estate of the intestate, in the hands of the plaintiffs as his administrators. On the 2d of September, 1813, Allen sued out his execution upon the said judgment, and delivered it to the defendant, May, then a deputy sheriff for this county. * On [ * 234 ] the 6th of September, the defendant seized a horse, the property of the intestate, by virtue of said execution, and after duly advertising, sold the same at public vendue, to satisfy the execution.
    Some time after said sale, and within one year from the death of the intestate, the plaintiffs represented his estate insolvent; and a commission of insolvency is now pending.
    The plaintiffs had no interest in said horse, except as administrators as aforesaid, and having included the same in their inventory of their intestate’s estate.
    If, in the opinion of the Court, the action is maintainable upon the facts stated, the parties agree that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for their damages ; otherwise the defendant is to have judgment for his costs upon the nonsuit of the plaintiffs.
    
      Warren for the plaintiffs.
    
      Bond for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs should have prevented the issuing of the execution, which they might have done upon motion. Let them be called,

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
      
         Weeks vs. Gibbs, 9 Mass. Rep. 74. — Grosvenor vs. Gould, 9 Mass. Rep. 209. — Jewett vs. Smith, 12 Mass. Rep. 309.
     