246 LINGAN v. HEXDERSON.—1 BLAND.

In a case where Whistler had given his note to Jolliffe for the
payment of $4,500, in Turkey, where Jolliffe continued to reside
some time before his return to England, Whistler, after the giving
of this note, made his will, appointing Pitt his executor, and died.
Some time after Pitt having come to England and qiialified as
executor. Jolliffe filed a bill in Chancery against him, and some
others, the creditors of his testator, for an account of the assets
and for the recovery of this debt. The defendant Pitt submitted
to do as the Court should direct; but the defendant creditors in-
sisted the plaintiff was bound by the Statute of Limitations. The
Chancellor inclined to the opinion, that the Statute of Limitations
was not to take place. The time till Whistler's death being an-
swered, and the executor being beyond sea, the Statute of 4 and
5 Anne, c. 10, s. 19, took place, which saves the right of action as
well where the debtor is beyond sea as where the creditor is beyond
sea. Whereupon the case was reterred to the mastei to take an
account and to allow the plaintiff's claim, &c. Jolliffe \. Pitt, 2
Vern. 694. This is all that is said by the Court in relation to the
bearing of the several defences; whence it is evident, that had not
Jolliffe's claim been taken out of the Statute of Limitations, as
relied on by only a part of the defendants, he could have had no
relief, even although the executor had submitted to do as the Court
should direct.

A feme covert before her marriage, with the consent of her then
intended husband, conveyed an estate to her separate use, and
after her marriage she borrowed £25 upon her bond: ten years
afterwards * she made her will, thereby giving several spe-
262 legacies, and made A and B executors; on her death her
husband possessed himself of moneys which she left, to the amount
of £24; after which the obligee in the bond brought a bill against
the executors and the husband; and one of the executors confessed
assets; but the husband insisted upon the Statute of Limitations.

Master of the Roils. It is true, that the bond given by the feme
corert is merely void, and in that respect differs from a bond given
by an infant, which is only voidable. It is likewise true, that the
defendant, insisting upon the benefit of the Statute of Limitations
by way of answer, shall, at the hearing, have the like benefit of the
statute as if he had pleaded it. But in this case, all the separate
estate of the feme corert was a trust estate for payment of debts,
and a trust is not within the Statute of Limitations. From whence
it seems as if the plaintiff ought to be at liberty to prosecute all
the defendants, in order to be paid out of the separate estate left
by the feme corert, to which purpose such part of the separate
estate, as is undisposed of by the will, ought to be first applied.
In the next place, if that be not sufficient, the creditors are to be
paid out of any money-legacies given by the feme covert; and lastly,
supposing there is still a deficiency, all the specific legatees ought