542 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.

I am therefore of opinion, that these affidavits of John W.
Duvall, and Robert Welch, of Ben., must in this ease be received
as sufficient evidence of the insolvency of the makers of the notes
which were endorsed by the deceased.

It appears from the vouchers of the claims, as referred to by the
auditor, that the deceased, Beak M. Worthington, had, in his life-
time, given a single bill to Warfield & Ridgely, No. 39, for the
payment of a certain sum of money; and was, besides, indebted
to the same firm, on an open account, No. 42; and further, that
he had given his single bill, No. 40, for the payment of a sum of
money to David Ridgely & Co.; and was indebted to them by
an open account, No. 41; and that all four of these claims have
been assigned by the surviving partner of those firms, to the pre-
sent claimant, George Wells. It also appears, that the same firms
had become liable to the deceased as the endorser of certain pro-
missory notes, the holders of which, now claim satisfaction from
his estate.

It is perfectly clear, that if those firms of Warfield & Ridgely,
and David Ridgely & Co., had themselves, claimed payment of
the four debts they assigned to Wells, that the deceased in his
life-time, might have set off, or had a discount in bar of so much
as he had been compelled to pay as endorser for those firms. And
this same right of the deceased, now subsists for the benefit of his
representatives; unless it can be shewn that the assignee of those
debts, stands in a better situation than those firms under whom he
claims. But it is a well established general rule of this court, that
the assignee of a chose in action, except negotiable paper, such as
a note or bill of exchange not then due, takes it subject to all the
equity it was liable to, in the hands of the obligee or original cre-
ditor, whether the assignee had notice at the time, of such equity
or not. Length of time and circumstances, may however, vary
the rule and strengthen the claims of the assignee, (n) But in this
instance, there is no single circumstance which can give this as-
signee any claim to a modification of the rule in his favour. It
must, therefore, be applied to this case as fully as suggested by the
auditor; and if it shall appear, that his claims are more than covered
by the endorsements for which the deceased's estate is liable, they
must be rejected altogether; otherwise he may be allowed to come
in for the balance.

(n) Coles v. Jones, 2 Vern, 682; Hill v. Caillovel, 1 Ves. 122; Priddy v. Rose,
3 Meriv. 86.