were of opinion, that as the payment was made by the plaintiffs under the belief that the estate of the testator was solvent, the case came within the principle of Walker v. Hill and Walker v. Bradley, and that there was an implied promise on the part of the defendants to refund the difference between the sum paid and the amount allowed by the Probate Court; and it was also resolved, that the case was to be governed by the laws of this State.

Defendants defaulted.