Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/137

121 EQUITY JURISDICTION. 121 and then he must specify and describe the assets which he had by descent. If the heir so pleaded, and the plaintiff did not choose to controvert the truth of the plea, the latter could take judgment for his entire debt, his execution, however, to be limited to the assets in the heir's possession.^ If, however, the plaintiff traversed the plea, and issue was joined on the traverse, the question at the trial was whether the heir had any more assets than he had ad- mitted. If the jury found that he had not, their verdict must be in his favor, and hence the plaintiff lost the benefit of such assets as the heir admitted that he had.^ If the jury found that the heir had more assets than he had admitted, to ever so small an amount, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff, on which the latter would be entitled to a judgment for his entire debt against the heir per- sonally.^ It will be seen, therefore, that judgments against heirs differed from judgments against executors in two particulars; namely, first, that a judgment against an heir was always for the full amount of the plaintiff's debt, though the execution might be limited to the assets in the heir's possession ; secondly, that, when- ever a judgment against an heir rendered him personally liable, the judgment was against him personally in form, as well as in legal effect. The reason of the first of these differences was that an executor who admitted a limited amount of assets in his hands, did not specify such assets, but stated their value in money ; and hence the proper way of limiting the executor's liability to the amount of assets in his hands was by limiting the judgment to the amount of money admitted by the executor to be the value of the assets in his hands. An heir, on the other hand, who admitted a limited amount of assets, specified and described such assets, but did not state their value. Indeed, as we shall see presently, the only question, as to the value of such assets, was as to their annual value, and that was not ascertained till after an execution had issued ; and hence the only way of limiting the heir's liability was by limiting the execution to the specific assets in the heir's possession. The reason of the second difference was that, as the heir was bound by the bond, and as the assets which he had received by descent were as much his own as any of his a special judgment against the heir. 2 See I Kol. Abr. 929 (B.), pi. 2. 8 Hinde v. Lyon, 2 Leon, ii ; per Holt, C. J., in Smith v. Angel, 7 Mod. 40, 44. See supra, p. 120, n. (4).
 * Anon., Dyer, 373 b^ pi, 14 ; Davy v. Pepys, Plow. 438 a. Such a judgment is called