WATKINS v. WOETHINGTON.—2 BLAND, 517

debted to the same firm, on aa open account, No. 42; and further,
ihat he had given his single bill, No. 40, for the payment of a sum
of money to David Ridgely & Co.; and was indebted to them by
an open account, No. 41; and that all four of these claims have
been assigned by the surviving partner of those firms, to the pres-
ent claimant, George Wells. It also appears, that the same firms
had become liable to the deceased as the endorser of certain prom-
issory notes, the holders-of which, now claim satisfaction from his
estate.

It is perfectly clear, that if those firms of Warneld & Ridgely,
and David Ridgely & Co., had themselves, claimed payment of the
the four debts they assigned to Wells, that the deceased in his life-
time, might have set off, or had a discount in bar of so much as
he had been compelled to pay as endorser for those firms. And
this same right of the deceased, now subsists for the benefit of his
representatives; unless it can be shewn that the assignee of those
debts, stands in a better situation than those firms under whom he
claims. But it is a well established general rule of this Court, that
the assignee of a chose in action, except negotiable paper, such as
a note or bill of exchange not then due, takes it subject to all the
equity it was liable to, in the hands of the obligee or original cre-
ditor, whether the assignee had notice at the time, of such equity
or not. Length of time and circumstances, may however, vary
the rule and strengthen the claims of the assignee. Coles v.
Jones, 2 Vern. 692: Hill v. Caillovel,1 Ves. 122; Priddy v. Rose,
3 Meriv. 86. But in this instance, there is no single circumstance
which can give this assignee any claim to a modification of the
rale in his favor. It must, therefore be applied to this case as
fully as suggested by the auditor; and if it shall appear, that his
claims are more than covered by the endorsements for which the
deceased's estate is liable, they must be rejected altogether;
otherwise he may be allowed to come in for the balance.

*lt is sufficiently obvious, upon general principles, in a
creditor's suit to administer the assets of a deceased person, 543
that no debt can be allowed and paid out of such assets, which
was not contracted by. or due from him, during his life-time; and
it has been distinctly so settled by this Court, and by the Court of
Appeals. Carnan v. Turner, 6 H. & J. 66. (h) The claim of A.

[h] HULSE v. CRADOCK.—This was a creditor's bill, filed oa the 21st January.
1797, to have John Cradock's real estate sold, to pay his debts; sale decreed,
&c. The sales as made and reported, were absolutely ratified and con-
firmed. After which, upon a receipt of a solicitor for his fee, for drawing
the answers of the defendants, being presented and filed as a claim against
the deceased's estate.

HANSON, C., 28th March, 1799.—This is no debt due from the deceased. It
cannot even come in by way of costs, no costs being allowed for drawing
answers; it must therefore be rejected.