¶1Legacy to a debtor.
¶2Testatrix had, for some time before her death, been in a low state of health; the defendant had taken charge of her affairs, and had some accounts against her, but had borrowed 1B01 from her, for which he had given a bond; the will contained a bequest of 2001. to him, “ provided he brings no account against me and my estate. Quiere ? Whether the legacy is a release of the bond ?(b)
¶3Tilghman and Levy, for the plaintiff. Sergeant, for the defendant.
¶6Debt. Plea, payment, with leave to give the will of testatrix in evidence. The case was simply this : Mrs. Massey, the testatrix, was in a low state of health, for some time before her death; the defendant took the charge of her affairs, and had some accounts against her ; but he borrowed 150i. from her, for which he gave a bond, payable in one year, with interest. On the 5th of June 1784, she made her will, which was proved on the 21st of June, containing, among other things, this bequest : “I give to T. Learning, in consideration of his many services to me, 200i. in real specie ; provided, he brings no account against me and my estate ; and if he happen to bring any account against me, or my estate, then this bequest to be void with a devise over of the testatrix’s estate. The legacy was paid to T. Learning ; the present action was brought upon his bond; and the question of law arose, whether the bequest operated as a release ?
¶7The plaintiff’s counsel suggested, that they were ready to prove, that there was a deficiency of assets to pay debts. Upon this suggestion, it was agreed, that a verdict be given for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the bequest was an extinguishment of the debt ? If it was so considered, then the plaintiff shall be at liberty to prove a deficiency of assets, for the payment of debts.
¶8After depending for a great period on the docket, the suit was, finally, marked “ not to be brought forward.”