
    CASE 25 — PETITION EQUITY
    JANUARY 12.
    Johnson, &c., vs. Belt.
    APPEAL PROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.
    !l. The right of a creditor of a decedent to sue his heirs or devisees in equity, is expressly conferred by the Revised Statutes. (Nee. 10, chap. 40.)
    2. The provision of section 4H3 of the Civil Code, which requires a demand, of the debt claimed, before an action shall be brought against a personal representative, is restricted in its application to actions against personal representatives. A failure to make, such demand, is not an available ground for dismissing an action against the heirs or dev. isees .of a decedent.
    M. Polk, For Appellants,
    CITED—
    IS B. Mon., 229 ; Clarke vs. Seaton.
    
    14 B. Mon., 395; Daniel vs. Judy.
    
    1 Duvall, 281; Smith vs. Curtis.
    
    W. S. Darnaby, For Appellee,
    CITED—
    
      Civil Code, sec. 473.
    
      Revised. Statutes, 1 Stanton, 509, 510, 553.
   JUDGE HARDIN

delivered the opinion op the court:

The right of a creditor of a decedent to sue his heirs or devisees in equity, as was done in this case, is expressly conferred by the 10th section of chapter 40 of the Revised Statutes.

The affidavit affixed to the written evidence of the • plaintiffs’ claim is in substantial conformity to the requirements of section 34 of article 2 of chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes; and as the provision of section 473 of the Civil Code, which requires a demand of the debt claimed before an action shall be brought against, a personal representative, is restricted in its application to actions against personal representatives, the failure to make such demand was not an available ground for dismissing this action against the claims of McDonald.

The court properly overruled the motion to dismiss the action, and we perceive no error in the judgment, which is therefore affirmed.  