
    Franklin, Robinson, & Co. against Eli Brownson, Administrator.
    
      Vermont stat. vol.2. p. 152.
    Ib. p. 53. In an action against an administrator upon an estate represented insolvent, declaration upon a promissory note made by the intestate, the Court will not admit parol testimony to show that the note had been exhibited to the commissioners as a claim against the insolvent estate.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the intestate.
    Plea in bar, that the estate had been represented insolvent, and this claim barred by the 83d section of the probate act, as not having been exhibited to the commissioners.
    Replication, that the claim had been exhibited to the commissioners. Traverse, and issue to the Jury.
    The plaintiffs now offered to show in evidence by a witness, that the defendant had confessed to him that the note had been exhibited to the commissioners as a claim against the intestate’s estate.
   Per Curiam.

This is not the highest and best evidence the nature of the case admits. The commissioners of insolvency are obliged to report to the Judge of Probate, on oath, as well a list of all the claims by them allowed, as a list of such as have been presented and disallowed. Here is written evidence of a high nature, as it becomes part of the record in the registry of probate. If parol testimony could be admitted, the oath of one or more of the commissioners would be more conclusive than the confession of the administrator.

C. Langdon and S. Camp, for plaintiffs.

D. Fay and L. Hall, for defendant.

The evidence cannot be admitted.

Verdict for defendant.

Note. The plaintiffs at this term moved a rule upon the defendant, to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a repleader awarded. Rule granted, and argued and decided, Bennington County, Manchester July adjourned term, A. D. 1803. Vide post.  