492 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.—2 BLAND.

drawn by William Warfield, in favor of, and endorsed by the de-
ceased to the present claimants. The bank's, No. 18, was on John
W. Clagett's note, in favor of, and endorsed by the deceased to
the present claimants. The bank's, Nos. 19, 20 and 25, were
founded on notes of D. Ridgely & Co. in favor of, and endorsed
by the deceased to the present claimants. The bank's, No. 21,
was on Warfield & Bidgely's note, in favor of, and endorsed by
the deceased to the present claimants. That those claims could
not be allowed without proof of the insolvency of the drawers.
That affidavits had been filed by the claimants as evidence of such
insolvency, which were deemed insufficient, because they spoke
only from the belief of the deponents, and from general reputation.
But individual opinion or general reputation furnished no such clear
evidence of the utter insolvency of the principal debtor, as to give
to the creditor his equity against the estate of his surety. That
the general testimony of the affidavit, that all process of writs of
fieri facias, had been returned nulla bona, was not evidence of any
return upon a judicial writ. That if any evidence, short of a dis-
charge, under the insolvent laws, were admissible, there should be
proof of nulla bona on executions issued by the claimants to collect
the very debt then claimed, since the rule of the Court required
some evidence of the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part
of the creditor, to enforce payment from the principal debtor, and
did not permit the creditor to derive any assistance from the in-
conclusive acts of other creditors.

The auditor further said, that George Wells' claims, Nos. 39, 40,
41 and 42, were debts due from the deceased to Warfield & Ridgely
and D. Ridgely & Co., and assigned by them to the present claim-
ant. That the deceased had in his life-time endorsed sundry
notes drawn by the said firms, which remain unpaid, and were
then exhibited as claims against the deceased's estate; but as the
assignee should take subject to all the equities which might have
been raised against the claims, in the hands of the original credi-
tors, no part of said claims should be allowed until the deceased's
estate has been indemnified against the said endorsements. The
amount of the endorsed notes greatly exceeds the amount of the
aforesaid claims. The auditor further said, that A. & J. Miller's

claim, No. *44. originated after the death of the deceased,

515 and ought not to be allowed; and in conclusion said, that he
understood a distribution of personal estate had been made by the
deceased's administrator; but no dividends were credited on
George and John Barber's claim, No. 1; John W. Davall's, No. 5:
Charles T. Flusser's, No. 7; Henry Hammond's, No. 8; A. & J.
Miller's, Nos. 13, 14, 35 and 44; Joseph Phelps', No. 16; John
Bandall & Sous, No. 27; C. Salmon's, No. 32; George Shaw's, No.

33; Anderson Warfield's. No. 37; George Wells', Nos. 39, 40, 41
and 42; or Henry Wilmot's, No. 43. Upon this report of the aud-