
    John Nehbe v. Thomas W. Price, Adm’r P. S. Smith.
    An estate is not bound by the contracts of an administrator, 
    
    In an action against an administrator, an order drawn by the plaintiff in favor of a third, on the intestate, found among the intestate’s papers, and not rebutted by other evidence, is good as a discount, and will entitle the defendant to a deduction, pro tanto.
    
    This was an action of assumpsit, on a blacksmith’s account, amounting to $438 43.
    *To this, non-assumpsit, and a discount, amounting to $372 05, were r*aoQ pleaded.
    The plaintiff proved his account.
    The defendant then produced several orders drawn by the intestate on his factor, in favor of the plaintiff, on which were receipts signed by him. The defendant also produced an order drawn upon the intestate by the plaintiff, in favor of A. Grary, or bearer, for $130 ; this order was found among the papers of the intestate. The defendant also proved that the two items in the plaintiff’s account were for work done subsequent to the death of the intestate.
    The jury found a verdict for plaintiff.
    
      It appeared that the items charged for work done subsequent to the death of the intestate, were allowed, and it further appeared that the defendant was not allowed a credit for the draft of $130.
    A motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
    
      
       3 Brev. 511, or 2 Tread. 676; 1 Bail. 126; 2 Bail. 318; 11 Rich. 410.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

HxjgeR, J.

It has been repeatedly decided in this Court, that an estate is not bound by the contracts of an administrator; so much therefore of the account as occurred subsequent to the death of the intestate, ought to have been omitted.

The order drawn by the plaintiff on the intestate, in favor of A. Gray, or bearer, and found among the papers of the intestate, not being rebutted by other evidence, was sufficient to entitle the defendant to a deduction, pro tanto.

I am of opinion, therefore, that on both grounds, the appellant is entitled to a new trial.

Richardson, Nott and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

Coclock, J., dissented.

Gantt, J., was absent nearly this whole term, holding the Circuit Court.  