
    Thomas Dawes, Judge, &c., versus Margaret Edes and Others.
    Sureties in an administration bond are liable for the amount of any chattels which have come to the administrator’s hands, as well before as after the execution of the bond and granting of administration.
    In debt upon an administration bond, the issue was, whether cer tain chattels, part of the intestate’s estate, which were not contained in the inventory returned by the administratrix, had come to her hands previous to the date of the bond ; and, the jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Fuller, for the defendants, moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground, that the issue was immaterial; the sureties not having been privy to, or answerable for, the conduct of the administratrix, prior to the execution of the bond by them. And he argued, that the words of the bond, as prescribed by statute, favored this construction. The administrator is to render an inventory of such goods, *&c., of the deceased, which have or shall come to the hands, &c., of the administrator. These words seem to suppose a present possession by the administrator. Had the intention of the legislature been, that the bond should have a retrospective operation, the expression would probably have been, such goods, &c., which have been in the hands, as well as those which have or shall come, &c.  The administratrix is still chargeable for these goods, as executrix de son tort, so that the creditors are as well off as if she had never taken administration.
    
      Bigelow, for the plaintiff.
    
      
      er) Stat. 1783, c. 36.
    
   Per Curiam.

The plain intention of the condition of the bond, as prescribed by the statute, is, to cover every thing belonging to the estate of the deceased, that snail have come to the hands of the administrator since the death of the deceased, as well before as after the execution of the bond.

Judgment according to the verdict.  