
    Reynolds v. Putney’s administrator.
    From Bertie.
    Att administrator against whom a suit, originally commenced against his intestate, is revived by set. fa. may confess judgment on a writ subsequently issued against him as administrator, and give in evidence the record of such judgment, in support of his plea of fully administered to the suit revived by sci.fa.
    
    An administrator may retain assets to satisfy a debt due to himself on a note of his intestate, endorsed to him,after the death of the intestate, but prior to the granting of administration.
    This was an action of debt, originally brought against Putney, and after his death revived by sáre Jadas against his administrator. The Defendant, among other.matters of defence, pleaded, fully administered, former judgments against him, retainer, and no assets ultra; and in support of his pleas, produced a record of a judgment confessed by him, as administrator of Putney, in favour of one Cunningham, in the County Court of Bertie, on the second Monday of May 1820, on a writ bearing teste March 1820. The pleas were entered in the suit on trial, on the fourth day of the same term at which the judgment was confessed. The Plaintiff’s writ of set. fa. was dated, and executed on the Defendant on the 14th of February, 1820. In support of the plea of retainer, the Defendant produced the obligation of Putney, payable to Joseph H. Bryan, and endorsed by said Bryan to the Defendant $ he proved the execution of this obligation by Putney, and that it was endorsed and delivered to him by Bryan, for valuable'consideration, before administration granted, but after the death of his intestate.
    The- Court told the Jury, that the administrator might confess a judgment in favour of Cunningham, and plead it in bar of the Plaintiff, and that on the obligation of Putney, endorsed by Bryan, he had a right to retain. The Jury found that the administrator of Putney had fully administered, and had no assets to satisfy the Plain.tiff’s demand, or any part thereof. A new trial was refused, and judgment rendered for the Defendant, whereupon Plaintiff appealed.
   Per Curiam.

No error is perceived in the charge of the Court, as contained in the record, and a new trial is consequently refused.  