CONN VS. CONN. 219

pledge her separate estate; and if they can succeed in doing
so, and can likewise remove the other objections which stand
in their way, they may be entitled to be paid.

The claims numbered 1, 2, and 3, are, as has been stated,
founded upon the joint notes of James Hall, the husband, Eliza-
beth Hall, the wife; and although it is admitted, that he as well
as his wife, died leaving no personal estate, it is not shown
that he left no real estate; and consequently, in any event,
without further proof, the estate of the wife could be charged
with no more than one-half of the claim. To make her estate
liable for the whole claim, regarding it as a joint debt, the in-
solvency of James Hall, must be shown.

I do not concur with the reasoning of the counsel for these
creditors, that it is immaterial whether the land was settled to
the separate use of Mrs. Hall, or not; and that a liability can
be fastened upon her, upon the ground that she traded and
dealt as Vtfeme sole.

The cases of Clayton vs. Adams, 6 T. R., 545, and Mar-
shall vs. Rutten, 8 T. R., 545, are conclusive against any such
doctrine.

Under all the circumstances of this case, I shall order it to
stand over for a reasonable time, with liberty to these creditors
to furnish evidence, if in their power, to remove the objections
which have presented themselves to my mind, to the payment
of their claims in the present state of the proceedings; reserv-
ing the power to pass such further orders in the premises, as
the nature of the case may require.

[No appeal was taken in this case.]