514 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.

costs of survey and of suit; and dividends on all the claims so
stated. But that the account was stated, subject to the following
objections to particular claims. James Dealers, No. 3, and the
bank's, No. 26, were founded on notes drawn by William Warfield,
in favour of, and endorsed by the deceased to the present claimants.
The balk's, No. 18, was on John W. Clagetfs note, in favour of,
and endorsed by the deceased to the present claimants. The
bank's, Nos. 19, 20 and 25, were founded on notes of D. Ridgely
& Co. in favour of, and endorsed by the deceased to the present
claimants. The bank's, No. 21, was on Warfield & Ridgely's
note, in favour of, and endorsed by the deceased to the present
claimants. That those claims could not be allowed without proof
of the insolvency of the drawers. That affidavits had been filed
by the claimants, as evidence of such insolvency; which were
deemed insufficient; because they spoke only from the belief of
the deponents, and from general reputation. But individual opi-
nion or general reputation, furnished no such clear evidence of the
utter insolvency of the principal debtor, as to give to the creditor
his equity against the estate of his surety. That the general tes-
timony of the affidavit, that all process of writs of fieri facias, had
been returned nulla bona, was not evidence of any return upon a
judicial writ. That if any evidence, short of a discharge, under
the insolvent laws, were admissible, there should be proof of nulla
bona on executions issued by the claimants to collect the very debt
then claimed; since the rule of the court required some evidence
of the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part of the creditor,
to enforce payment from the principal debtor; and did not permit
the creditor to derive any assistance from the inconclusive acts
of other creditors.

The auditor further said, that George Wells9 claims, Nos. 39,40,
41 and 42, were debts due from the deceased to Warfield & Ridgely,
and D. Ridgely & Co., and assigned by them to the present claim-
ant. That the deceased had in his life-time, endorsed sundry notes
drawn by the said firms, which remain unpaid, and were then
exhibited as claims against the deceased's estate; but as the as-
signee should take subject to all the equities which might have been
raised against the claims, in the hands of the original creditors, no
part of said claims should be allowed until the deceased's estate
has been indemnified against the said endorsements. The amount
of the endorsed notes greatly exceeds the amount of the aforesaid
claims. The auditor further said, that A. & J. Miller's claim, No.