LINGAN v. HENDERSON.

wards she made her will, thereby giving several specific legacies,
and made A and B executors; on her death her husband possessed
himself of moneys which she left, to the amount of 24; after
which the obligee in the bond brought a bill against the executors
and the husband; and one of the executors confessed assets; but
the husband insisted upon the statute of limitations.

Master of the Rolls. It is true, that the bond given by the feme
covert is merely void, and in that respect differs from a bond given
by an infant, which is only voidable. It is likewise true, that the
defendant, insisting upon the benefit of the statute of limitations
by way of answer, shall, at the hearing, have the like benefit of the
statute as if he had pleaded it. But in this case, all the separate
estate of the feme covert was a trust estate for payment of debts,
and a trust is not within the statute of limitations. From whence
it seems as if the plaintiff ought to be at liberty to prosecute all the
defendants, in order to be paid out of the separate estate left by
the feme covert, to which purpose such part of the separate estate,
as is undisposed of by the will, ought to be first applied. In the
next place, if that be not sufficient, the creditors are to be paid out
of any money-legacies given by the feme covert; and lastly, sup-
posing there is still a deficiency, all the specific legatees ought 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 admit assets, and yet have none,
nor any estate of his own. And it would not be reasonable, 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 respec-
tively have in their hands of the feme covert's personal estate, or
the produce thereof, and let the same be liable in the order afore-
said, reserving costs.(k)

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

(k) Norton v. Turvill, 2 P. Will. 144.