ART. 93] DEBTS. 2061

been discharged except what (if any) is credited, and that to the best
of the deponent's knowledge and belief no part of the said claim hath
been discharged, and no security or satisfaction given for the same,
except what (if any) is credited.

If residuary legatees are injured they may appeal from an order pass-
ing the claim of an executor, or may have issues sent to a court of law to
determine the validity of the claim, but in neither case will costs and coun-
sel fees be allowed such legatees out of the estate. (See notes to section 5.)
Bell v. Funk, 75 Md. 371.

Although the affidavit is not strictly in form, the defect is cured if the
account is passed by the court. Semmes v. Young, 10 Md. 246.

Cited but not construed in Watson v. Watson, 58 Md. 440.

1904, art. 93. sec. 95. 1888, art. 93, sec. 96. 1860, art. 93, sec. 97. 1798, ch. 101.

sub-ch. 9, sec. 19.

96. In no case shall an administrator be allowed to retain for his
own claim against the decedent, unless the same be passed by the
orphans' court, and every such claim shall stand on an equal footing
with other claims of the same nature.

Claims of administrators and executors against the estate which they rep-
resent, stand on the same footing as other claims. Semmes v. Young, 10
Md. 247. Nlchols v. Hodges, 1 Pet. 565.

An administration account is prima facie evidence to sustain a payment
made by an administrator to himself as well as to third persons. Owens v.
Colllnson, 3 G. & J. 38.

In case an administrator has a claim against the estate, the statute of
limitations does not run while he is such administrator. Semmes v. Young,
10 Md. 247; Spencer v. Spencer, 4 Md. Ch. 464.

As to when an executor will be allowed interest upon over-payments, see
Blllingslea v. Henry, 20 Md. 286. As to over-payments, see also, Watkins v.
Dorsett, 1 Bl. 530; Colllnson v. Owens, 6 G. & J. 4; Gist v. Cockcy, 7 H. &
J. 135.

This section referred to as indicating that the claim of an heir or devisee
against the estate, stands on the same footing as other claims. Hammond v.
Hammond, 2 Bl. 385.

Cited but not construed in Levering v. Levering, C4 Md. 413; Ellicott v.
Welch, 2 Bl. 249.

Ibid. sec. 96. 1888, art. 93, sec. 97. 18PO, art. 93, sec. 98. 1798, ch. 101,
sub-ch. 9, sec. 15.

97. No administrator shall be allowed in his account for any claim
discharged by him unless he produce the claim passed by the orphans'
court, or proven as herein directed.

This section has no application to taxes; executors must take notice of,
and pay them. Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 469.

This section referred to in construing section 107—see notes thereto.
Coburn v. Harris, 53 Md. 372.

Ibid. sec. 97. 1888, art. 93, sec. 98. 1860, art. 93, sec. 99. 1798, ch. 101,

sub-ch. 9, sec. 9.

98. It shall not be considered as the duty of an administrator to

avail himself of the act of limitations to bar what he supposes to be

a just claim, but the same shall be left to his honesty and discretion.

If the executor does not plead the statute, no one else can. Gordon v.

Small, 53 Md 559; Spencer v. Spencer, 4 Md. Ch. 465. And see Miller v.

Dorsey, 9 Md. 323; Bowling v. Lamar, 1 Gill, 359.