
    The Administrators of A. Gray, dec'd. v. Richard Cottrell, et al.
    
    in an action by on a note, given {‘«‘evfdenceftiio oneorfhe dSisti?-f tutees, to ñess deféndantr'iiav-’i^Iníuemi the trial, admits cáuse of müot¡ títieldmTo* the right of reply.
    
      Before O’Neall J. (sitting for Martin, J.) at Spar-ianburgh — Fall Term, 1832.
    Bebt on single bill. Plea, señera! issue, and un~ soundness oí a negro, part oí the consideration of bill. On the trial, the defendants admitted the execution of the single bill, which was payable to phiintiffs, by name, as administrators of A. (Trap, A great deal of evidence was given, on sides, as to the soundness of the negro, which it is unnecessary to detail. In the progress of the case, the defendants offered to prove the declarations of Tillotson Gray, one of the children of plaintiff’s intestate, that the negro was unsound. His Honor refused the evidence. After the plaintiíf’s had finally cloge(]; the defendants claimed the right of replying, in evidence and argument. The Court ruled otherwise. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs; and the defendants appealed, on the following grounds:
    1. Because his Honor excluded the declarations of the distributee, that the negro was unsound.
    2. Because his Honor refused to permit the defendants to reply in testimony, although the plaintiff’s case was admitted by the defendants.
    A. W. Thomson, for the motion.
   Johnson, J.

’ The declarations of Tillotson Gray, that the negro was unsound, were, we think, properly rejected. Asoné of the distributees of the intestate’s estate, he was himself, competent to be sworn, to prove the fact, as it operated against his interest, although he would have been incompetent to testify to facts calculated to increase the funds of the estate. Butler v. Cooke, Cowp: 70—2 Salk. 691; and in Jackson v. Tredenburgh, 1 Johns. Rep. 162, it is said he would be the best possible witness. ' They are excluded by another rule. There were other distributees of-this estate, and probably creditors, over whose interest he had no control, and these declarations were calcular ted to affect their interests, also ; and on that ground they were inadmissible.

The case of O'Neall v. Abney, referred to in the report, does not appear to ns, to have any direct bearing on this question. That was an action.against an administrator de bonis non, on a contract made with his predecessor, the first administrator, and it was held that the action could not be maintained, because the contract involved the personal liability of the first administrator only. It does not follow however, that if he had acted bona fide in making the contract, that he \\ ould have been entitled to an indemnity for any loss arising out of it. He had sold a negro to the plaintiff for a sound price, the negro proved to be unsound, and if a recovery had been had against him for the value, doubtless the estate would have been obliged to indemnify him if he had acted without fraud.— We concur also on the last ground of the motion.

Motion dismissed.  