This demurrer for multifariousness was certainly put in under a mistaken view of the case ; for the bill seeks to charge the defendants on account of their own agency only,- oii their own undertaking, and in no way calls them to account for the agency of their testator. It is true, the agency of Martin is also stated, and that they are his executors, and that assets came to their hands ; but.this is only an unnecessary statement of the evidence," which, it would be more proper to show before the master, to prove that they themselves had collected, or might have collected the debts due from Martin, by proof of liis assets in then-hands. There is no pretence to say that the bill is multifarious, as calling them to an aecount.both for Martin’s agency and their own. As to the jurisdiction of the ° , , court, I do not know how it can be doubted, lor the defendants certainly are the bailiffs, agents or receivers, of debts due from others to the pl<iiutiflfSj íind the Ctisc is strengthened, if it needed it, by the "removal of the principal to a foreign country. Can there be a doubt but that it is a proper case for an an action of account at law. Per Curiam. — Decree ACCORDINGLY.