It is conceded, that the plaintiff Dolly is entitled to whatever suplus may remain in the hands of the administrator, and for that she will have a decree in the bill filed by her for an account, which is still pending. Whether, after it is received by her, she will hold it for her own use, or in trust to divide it among the six children of the testator, will be a very interesting question ; but it is one, about which we do not feel at liberty in this case to express an opinion. It is a question between the plaintiff Dolly and the defendants, her children ; with which the other plaintiffs in this case and the defendant Batchelor have no concern, and the present bill was not filed with a view or in a manner to present it for our decision.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for by this bill. There is no authority to sustain the position, that a legatee may pay off the debts of the testator, and then file a bill for repayment. It is the duty of the executor or administrator to pay debts ; and if a legatee was allowed to interfere, it would be inconvenent and derange the clear course of administration. In this case, the administrator stands upon his rights ; and the plaintiffs are without remedy, both upon the ground, that they officiously intermeddled with a matter, about which they had no concern, and upon the ground, that the debt, to which they seek to be substituted, is barred by the statute of limitations.

Bill dismissed with qosts,