ART. 93] INVENTORY AND LIST OF DEBTS. 2107

bation; or at the instance of either party, the court may direct an
issue or issues to be tried, and the same shall be tried in the circuit
court for the county, or the superior court of Baltimore city, the court
of common pleas or the Baltimore city court, as other issues from the
orphans' court; and the circuit court or superior court, court of com-
mon pleas or Baltimore city court shall have power to direct the jury
and grant a new trial, as if the issue or issues were in a suit therein
instituted; and a certificate from such court, or the judge thereof, of
the verdict, or finding of the jury, under the seal thereof, shall be
admitted by the orphans' court to establish or destroy the claim, or
any part thereof; and if the executor shall give in such claim, or any
part thereof be established as aforesaid, he shall account for the sum
due in the same manner as if it were so much money in his hands, and
on failure his bond may be put in suit.

This section and section 229 being in derogation of the common law, must
be strictly construed. They refer to "claims which the deceased had against"
the executor or administrator. This section held inapplicable to an alleged
default on an administrator's bond. Kirby v. State, 51 Md. 392.

Under this section, as well as under section 244, the orphans' court has
jurisdiction to inquire as to money alleged to have been turned over to the
executor by the testator during his lifetime. Linthicum v. Polk, 93 Md. 95.

History and intent of this section. Prior to the act of 1884, ch. 381—see
section 229—an executor and his bond were absolutely liable for a debt due
by such executor to the testator without regard to whether the executor was
insolvent or not. Lambrecht v. State, 57 Md. 247.

Purpose of this section. The duty of the orphans' court to make up and
transmit issues when required is imperative, and the findings of the court of
law are final and must be made effective by the orphans' court. Under the
circumstances of the case, held that a plaintiff might dismiss issues without
trial. Price v. Taylor, 21 Md. 363. And see Warford v. Colvin, 14 Md. 552;
Pegg v. Warford, 4 Md. 392; Keene v. Corse, 80 Md. 23.

In view of this section, where one of the executors who is also a legatee
is indebted to the estate, the indebtedness should be deducted from the
legacy. Hoffman v. Armstrong, 90 Md. 130.
This section applied. Kealhofer v. Emmert, 79 Md. 250.
This section referred to in deciding that the assignee of a chose in action
due by an executor to his testator, may in his own name sue the executor
thereon. Kent v. Somervell, 7 G. & J. 268.

This section referred to in discussing the question of when one obligor
could be held liable although another pleaded a good defense. Llngan v.
Hendersou, 1 Bl. 260.

This section referred to in construing sections 5 and 224—see notes thereto.
Handy v. Collins, 60 Md. 239.

This section referred to in construing section 255—see notes thereto. Levy
v. Levy, 28 Md. 32.

As to the rule on the subject of this section at common law, and the reason
thereof, see Beall v. Hilllary, 1 Md. 189.

Cited but not construed in Gibbons v. Riley, 7 Gill. 84; Van Ness v. Van
Ness. 6 How. 62.

See notes to sec. 229.

1904. art. 93, sec. 228. 1888. art. 93, sec. 225. 1860, art. 93. sec. 225. 1798, ch. 101.
sub-ch. 8, sec. 21. 1884, ch. 381.

229. In like manner it shall be the duty of every administrator to
give in a claim against himself, and on giving it in. or failure to give it
in, there shall be the samp proceedings in every respect as are before
prescribed in regard to an executor; but nothing herein, or in the pre-