*327 (1) *326 We think the demurrer must be overruled. Whether Sarah J. Potter or Grace E. Potter, two of the persons in whose interest the action on the executor’s bond is brought, can maintain the same before obtaining judgment against the executor, they being plain legatees only under the will of William D. Potter, we need not decide, as Elbert S. Potter is also one of the persons in whose interest the action is brought, and he is one of the residuary devisees and legatees under the will, the defendant William J. Potter, the *327 executor, being the other. And although the statute (Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 218, § 29) gives to said Elbert S. Potter, as residuary legatee, the right to bring an action of account or in the nature of an action of account against the executor, it provides that such right is without prejudice to any other remedies. This clause so materially changes said section from what it formerly was that the case of Drown v. Staples, 18 R. I. 117, mainly relied on by defendant’s counsel in support of his demurrer, is not controlling. Indeed, it is fair to presume that the change of said statute was - made in view of our decision in said case. We see no reason, therefore, why the case stated in the plaintiff’s declaration as to said Elbert, at any rate, may not be maintained under the provisions of Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 220. See sections 20, 32, 33, and 34. 1

Several other questions have been diligently argued by counsel, but as the one we have passed upon is sufficient to dispose of the demurrer, there is no occasion for us to consider them.

The demurrer is overruled.