WATKINS v. DORSETT. 531

had obtained letters of administration de bonis non on the estate
of the testator Samuel W. Clagett, and had advertised for sale, and
was about to sell those very slaves, which had been so specifically
bequeathed and delivered to these plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, by
their bill, averred, that no debt was then due on the* final account
of the late Walter Clagett; that it had been satisfied; that no suit
had ever been instituted to establish it; and that it was barred by
the statute of limitations. Whereupon the plaintiffs prayed, that
they might have an injunction to prevent the defendant from
making sale of the property so bequeathed to them; and that they
might have relief, &c. The injunction was granted as prayed.

The defendant put in his answer, in which he admits the facts
as stated in the bill; but denies that the claim had ever been paid;
and insists, that it could not be barred by the statute of limitations,
as there had not been, until he administered on the estate of
Samuel W. Clagett, any one against whom suit for its recovery
could have been brought; and that it was with him alone to admit
or deny the existence of the debt.

Upon this answer the defendant gave notice of a motion to dis-
solve the injunction: on the hearing of which on the 17th of
March 1827, it was continued until the final hearing or further
order. After which a commission was issued, under which testi-
mony was taken and returned, and the case set down for final
hearing.

30th July, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing ready
for hearing, the solicitors of the parties were fully heard and the
proceedings read and considered.

The object of this bill is not to repel a claim made by the exe-
cutor of Walter Clagett against these plaintiffs; but to restrain the
defendant, as administrator de bonis non of Samuel W. Clagett)
from officiously making sale of that which had been the property
of his testator, (but which had, long since, been legally delivered
over to these plaintiffs to whom it had been bequeathed,) for the
purpose of paying the claim, which Walter, by reason of his over
payment, as is alleged, had against the estate of his testator Samuel,

An executor who overpays is allowed, for such amount, to take
the place of the creditor whose claim he has thus paid beyond the
assets of his testator. He is, by substitution, regarded as one
of the creditors of his testator: but such executor must establish
the claim so overpaid against the heir or devisee by the same kind
of testimony which might have been required of the original