LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 247

to contribute in proportion. Neither can it be material, so as to
excuse the other defendants, that one of the executors of the feme
covert has admitted assets; for he might admits assets, and yet
have none, nor any estate of his own. And it would not be rea-
sonable, that this should prevent the plaintiff, the creditor, from
prosecuting the other executor, or the husband, who may have
possessed themselves of part of the separate estate, and ought to
be responsible. For which reason, let all the executors account
for what they respectively have in their hands of the feme, covert's
personal estate, or the produce thereof, and let the same be liable
in the order aforesaid, reserving costs. Norton v. Turvill, 2 Z'.
Will. 144.

From this case two points, in relation to the matter under con-
sideration, seem to have been treated as settled: first, that a plea
of, or a reliance in answer upon the Statute of Limitations by one
defendant alone, if sustained, would be a sufficient bar of the
whole, although the claim should be admitted by all the other
defendants; and secondly, that the confession of assets by one
executor, without actual satisfaction, is no bar to a recovery against
*the other executor; because until the entire cause of suit 263
has been barred or satisfied, each executor is liable for the
whole, so far as he may have assets. And so upon a bill of revi-
vor against several, although but one of the defendants by his
answer insisted, that he had no title to revive: it was held, that
the plaintiff must at the hearing shew, that he had a good title to
revive, or he could take nothing by his suit. Harris v. Pollard, 3
P. Will. 358.

A bill was tiled in the Court of Chancery of New York, by Morris
and Mowatt, as assignees of Sands, a bankrupt, against Clason
and Stanly. From which case, among a variety of other circum-
stances, it appears, that the defendants had been partners in trade,
and as such had obtained a judgment at law against Sands, and
had also obtained a right to another judgment against him by
assignment. After which Sands became a bankrupt; and some
time before the institution of this suit, the partnership between
the defendants had been dissolved. The bill prayed a discovery
of what was due to the defendants, or from Clason to Sands, &c.;
that satisfaction might be entered up on the judgments; and that
an injunction issue to restrain the defendants from proceeding by
execution, &c. The defendant Clason put in his answer relying
on a variety of facts and circumstances in his defence, &c. Stanly,
residing out of the State, the bill, as against him, was taken pro
confesso, for want of appearance, after a regular advertisement to
come in and answer. Testimony having been taken, and the case
heard, it was decreed, that the two judgments were to be deemed
fully satisfied, and to be so entered accordingly. From this decree
Clason appealed, and the Chancellor, in assigning the reasons for