NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND. 549

Penn, 2 Bro. C. C. 280; Jacobs v. Foodman, 2 Cox, 282; Lee v. Als-
ton, 1 Ves. Jim. 82; Mlbourn v. Fisher, 5 Ves. C85, note; Sutton v.
Scarborough, 9 Ves. 75; Baker v. Mellish, 10 Ves. 553; Corporation
of Carlisle v. Wilson, 13 Ves. 276; Rowe v. Tweed, 15 Ves. 377;
Drew v. Drew, 2 Ves. & B. 101; Jones v, Jo;jes, 3 Meri. 103; Wil-
liams v. Steward, 3 Men. 502; Attorney-General v. Brown, 1 Swan.
294; Holloway v. Milliard, 1 Mad. Rep. 421; Lorimer v. Lorimer, 5
Mad. 363; Sanders v. King, 6 Mad. 63: Mendizabel v. Machado, 2
Cond. Cha. Rep. 40; Moses v. Lewis, 5 E,rch. Rep. 388; Mellish v.
Richardson, 5 Exch. Rep. 404; Townshend v. Duncan, 2 Bland, 49.

1 shall therefore in the first place, endeavor to obtain a clear
view of the plaintiff's ease; and thereupon consider and deter-
mine the nature of the relief to which he is entitled; and then give
directions as to the accounts necessary to be taken for the purpose
of ascertaining the extent of that relief.

According to the law of England, an administrator de bonis non
cannot call the representatives of the previous deceased adminis-
trator of his testator to account for any property of the intestate,
that such predecessor may have converted or wasted. Nor can he
claim or recover any thing but those goods, chattels, and credits
of his intestate, which remains in specie and are capable of being
clearly and distinctly designated and distinguished as the prop-
erty of his intestate. Bac. Abr. tit. Executors and Administrators,
B. 2. An executor or administrator, who is here considered as a
trustee for the creditors, legatees, and next of kin, is expected
and required to preserve the property of the deceased apart from
his own, and to give it, as it were, an ear-mark, that it may be
known and readily traced to any one into whose hands it may
happen to fall. And if he does so, the Court will do every thing
that can be done to protect aud assist him. Wankford v. Wank-
ford, 1 Salk. 306; Freeman v. Frailie, 3 Meriv. 39.

According to our Provincial testamentary system, an adminis-
trator de bonis non might, under certain circumstances, have had
* his predecessor cited before the commissary and compelled
to account. 1715, ch. 39, s. 3; Dep. Com. Gu. 55, 57. But 563
at present, the remedy against an administrator or his representa-
tives, .for any waste or misapplication of the effects of the deceased,
is by an action at law upon his administration bond by any one
interested. For it is expressly declared, that the authority con-
ferred by letters of administration de bonis non, shall be to admin-
ister all things described in the Acts as assets not converted into
money and not distributed, or delivered, or retained by the former
executor or administrator, under the direction of the Orphans'
Court. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 14, s. 2; 1820, ch. 174, s. 3; Wank-
ford v. Wankford. 1 Salk. 306; Sibley v. Williams, 3 G. & J. 52.

Hence this plaintiff is incompetent to demand, in the represen-
tative character in which he sues, anything but those goods, chat-