ART. 26] SUITS AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS. 803

brought against him, he may plead the fact and a trial by jury shall be
thereupon had.

As to suits by and against administrators, see art. 93, sec. 104.

As to cases before justices of the peace to which an executor or adminis-
trator is a party, see art. 52, sec. 9, et seq.

1904, art. 26, sec. 27. 1888, art. 26, sec. 26. 1860, art. 29, sec. 21.
1802, ch. 101, sec. 1.

27. If, on any trial so had against an administrator, the debt or
demand of the plaintiff shall be contested, and there be any other issue
joined than upon the subject of assets, the jury, if they find for the
plaintiff upon the issue so joined, and the amount of assets found by
them be less than the debt or demand of the plaintiff, shall declare the
amount of the debt or demand, and also the sum to be paid by the
defendant to the plaintiff, regard being had to the amount of the assets
in hand, and the debts due from the deceased; and the court shall
thereupon enter judgment against the defendant for the penalty of' the
bond or damages laid in the plaintiff's declaration, and costs of suit,
if the court shall so direct, to be released upon payment of the sum
ascertained to be paid by the verdict of the jury, and interest thereon
from the time of rendering the said judgment.

If this section is not followed, and the Jury does not pass upon the suffi-
ciency of assets, though the undisputed evidence shows that the assets were
insufficent and less than the verdict, the judgment will be arrested upon
motion. Where, however, no such motion is made and there is an agreement
of record reading "judgment only to bind assets by agreement of counsel in
open court," this amounts to a waiver of a defect in the plaintiffs prayers
relative to insufficiency of assets. Gill v. Staylor, 93 Md. 473.

If the bond is in suit, the Judgment Is for the penalty of it, and if not,
then for the damages laid in the declaration to be released on payment of
amount of verdict. Neale v. Hermanns, 65 Md. 479.

Ibid. sec. 28. 1888, art. 26, sec. 27. 1860, art. 29, sec. 22.
1802, ch. 101, sec. 1.

28. The sum so ascertained shall be levied of the goods and chattels
of the deceased, or of the proper goods and chattels of the defendant, and
the residue of the debt or damages so ascertained shall be levied of the
goods and chattels of the deceased, which may thereafter come to the
hands of the defendant, to be administered with interest as aforesaid,
or of the proper goods and chattels of the defendant.
Cited but not construed in Gill v. Staylor, 93 Md. 473.

Ibid. sec. 29. 1888, art. 26, sec. 28. 1860, art. 29, sec. 23.
1802, ch. 101, sec. 1.

29. If such goods and chattels shall thereafter come to the hands of
the defendant as administrator, or into the hands of any other person
who may have authority to administer the goods of the deceased, the
plaintiff may issue on the said judgment a writ of scire facias, suggest-
ing the coming of assets to the hands of the administrator, liable to the
payment of the residue of his debt or demand, with interest as afore-
said, so due, upon which, if the defendant contests the same, there shall
be a trial by jury, as provided in section 26.

Cited but not construed in Gill v. Staylor, 93 Md. 473.