
    Nussbaum & Dannenberg, plaintiffs in error, vs. Albert B. Ross, administrator, defendant in error.
    The issue in Ibis ease being one to be determined by the evidence, and the whole question having been submitted to the Judge, we see nothing that calls for a reversal of his decision.
    New trial. Discretion. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. April Term, 1873.
    At the May term, 1870, of Bibb Superior Court, Nussbaum & Dannenberg, by their attorney at law, Henry W. Cowles, obtained a judgment against Albert B. Ross, as administrator upon the estate of John P. Lamar, deceased, for $183 57, principal, and $42 61, interest. The execution based upon this judgment was levied upon a lot of land as the property of the intestate. The administrator filed an affidavit of illegality setting up payment. The issue thus formed was submitted to the Court, without the intervention of a jury, upon the following statement of facts:
    Some time after the aforesaid execution was issued, Cowles, plaintiffs’ attorney, called on Ross, administrator, for payment, or part payment thereof. The administrator stated that he had no funds, but that J. Rutherford, Esq., the attorney for the estate, had in his hands an execution secured by a pledge of cotton, out of the proceeds of which plaintiffs’ fi. fa. should be paid. Also, that if he, Cowles, could get any person to advance the money on the fi. fa. he, Ross, would pay back the same to whoever controlled said process. Cowles applied to William P. Goodall, repeating to him the aforesaid statement of Ross, and assuring him that such advance would not only accommodate him but also the administrator. Goodall called on the administrator, who stated to him, snbsiantially, what he had previously said to Cowles. The administrator, in saying what he did to Cowles and Goodall, believed that Goodall would be perfectly safe in advancing the money under the circumstances. Goodall did advance the principal and interest due on said execution. *
    
      The Court suslaiued the affidavit of illegality, and plaintiffs in execution excepted.
    Poe & Hall, for plaintiffs in error.
    J. Rutherford, for defendant.
   Trippe, Judge.

The whole question in this case, to-wit: whether the execution was paid or not, was submitted to the Judge, and that being a matter to be determined by the evidence, we see nothing that demands of us a reversal of his decision.

Judgment affirmed.  