¶1 — It is admitted by both the Plaintiff and Defendant, that James Sumner, the executor, during his life, and at his death, which happened A. D. 1823, had an ample estate, and fully sufficient to pay any demand which Plaintiffs might have against him; that Plaintiff Martha was a feme sole and of full age, A. D„ 1812 j that this suit was not brought until the year 1825, After such a lapse of time, although it forms no bar to the suit, it may be apprehended that exact justice couM not be done, if the parties were to go into a settlement of their accounts. This however must be done, if the bond introduced by the Defendant does not interpose a sufficient bar;
¶2*341 Tins l*oncl was executed A. D. 1805, by John Sntton, iho first husband of the Plaintiff Martha, about eight our Bine years after the death of the testator, it is given in the sum of £10,000, conditioned on the part of John Sut-Ion ei to release, exonerate, and discharge in every way, manner and form, James Sumner, his heirs, executors and administrators from the exeeiitorsíisp to the will of Granbury Sutton deceased, in as full and ample a manner as if he liad never qualified thereto.” it must be understood from this strong language, that a settlement; had taken place between the parlies, the bond must be taken as proof of it, in the absence of any explanatory evidence. It is true that the bond has also a condition, that John Sutton shall pay to Sarah Sutton, the mother of Granbury, the sum of £15 a year during her natural life. .But this is a distinct stipulation from the preceding one, and a distinct breach might be assigned for the ncri= performance of either, ft cannot by any fair construe turn of the bond be believed, that it was given to guard the executor James from the demand only of Sarah Sul • ton. It was also given to guard him from the demand of the obligor John Sutton, husband of the Plaintiff Marthfí-„
¶3 -Let the bill be dismissed with costs.