By the statute of the 5 W & M. c. 20., and 9 W. c. 25. it is required that the inventory be written or ingrossed on paper or parchment, having a double sixpenny stamp; and by the statute of the 48 Geo. III. c. 149. there is imposed a duty of one pound; so that now the inventory must be written or engrossed on paper or parchment, stamped with a one pound stamp. It may be made in the following form, with variations, according to the condition of the goods to be inventoried. A TRUE and perfect inventory of all the goods, chattels, wares, and merchandizes, as well moveable as not moveable, of A. B. late of C. in the county of· in the diocese of · -, yeoman, deceased, made by us whose names are hereunto subscribed, the day of in the year of L. s. d. 15 0 0 20 0 0 27 0 0 Appraised by us the day and year above written, 25 2 6 D. E. F. G. SECTION IV. Of getting in the Effects, and what shall be Assets in the Administrator's Hands to make him chargeable. FOR Collecting the goods and chattels of the deceased, the executor or administrator has very large powers and interests conferred on him by the law, being the representative of the deceased. And an executor or administrator may, after the death of the deceased, enter into the house where the deceased lived, and where he died, and where the goods are, and take them away, and justify it; but he must do it within convenient and reasonable time, as within thirty days after his death, or thereabouts, and in a quiet and fair manner when the door is open k.-In the former part of this chapter we have seen that administrators are put upon the same footing, with regard to suits, as executors appointed by will, and that they shall have actions to demand and recover, as executors, the debts due to the intestate. An administrator may have an action upon a judgment, statute, recognizance, obligation, or other specialty, made to his intestate; or upon any covenant (14) or contract; and he shall have an action * Shep. Touch. 453. (14) The right of an executor or administrator to maintain an action upon a covenant entered into with his intestate, depends either upon the nature of the covenant, or upon the fact of a breach of it committed in the lifetime of the deceased being attended with a direct injury to his personal estate. Covenants are divided into the two classes of real and personal, and the distinction with respect to the course in which they go to the representatives of the person with whom they are made, is a clear one: real covenants run with the land, and either go to the assignee of the land, or descend to the heir, and must be taken advantage of by him alone; but personal covenants must be sued for by the executor or administrator. However, in the case of covenants which regard the of trespass or trover for the goods of the intestate taken in in his life; and an action for a trespass with cattle in his close' (15). And towards the beginning of this chapter we ¡ Com. Dig. Administration, (B. 13.) inheritance, if they are broken in the lifetime of the deceased, and an actual damage accrues to him whereby his personal estate is damnified, his personal representative may sue upon it. Therefore in the case of Lucy v. Levington, 2 Lev. 26. S.C. 1 Ventr. 175., where the testator in his lifetime had been evicted out of freehold lands, it was decided that his executor might maintain an action upon the covenant for quiet enjoyment, for the testator, by the eviction, being deprived of the rents and profits, of course the personal estate was so far diminished. See also Knights v. Quarles, 4 B. Moore, 532. S.P. But though a real covenant be broken in the lifetime of the testator, yet if his personal estate be not actually prejudiced thereby, the right of action devolves upon the heir, and cannot be enforced by the personal representative. This was determined in a late case where an executrix brought an action upon a covenant for title, contained in a conveyance of lands in fee, assigning as a breach that the covenantor had no title; but the court held, that inasmuch as the estate belonged to the heir, and the breach did not allege that the testator in his lifetime had sustained any damage, the executrix did not stand in a situation to take advantage of the covenant. Kingdon v. Nottle, 1 Mau. & Sel. 354. See also King v. Jones, 1 Marsh. 107. S. C. 5 Taunt. 418. and 4 Mau. & Selw. 188. (15) The statute of 4 Ed. 3. c. 7. which recites that in times past executors had not had actions for a trespass done to their testators, as of the goods of the said testators carried away in their life; and enacts, "that the executors in such cases "shall have an action against the trespassers in like manner "as they, whose executors they are, should have had if they "were living," has been largely and equitably expounded, and has been held to extend to an administrator. Smith v. Colgay, Cro. Eliz. 384. And it applies not only to a trespass and carrying away the goods, but also to a case in which the testator loseth his chattel by a tortious interference. Therefore a quare impedit will lie by an executor or administrator, for a disturbance to the deceased. Bishop of Coven have seen, that for the most part the same actions the deceased might have had, the administrator shall have also; and that in actions arising by breach of promise and the like, where the right descends to the representatives of the plaintiff, and those of the defendant have assets to answer the demand, though the suits shall abate by the death of the parties, yet they may be revived against, or by the executors or administrators. Likewise we have seen, that administrators are empowered to distrain for rent in Where any judgment after verdict shall be had, by or in the name of any executor or administrator; in such case an administrator of goods not administered, may sue forth a writ of scire facias, and take execution upon such judgment ". arrear. -- In all actions brought by executors or administrators, upon contracts, bonds, or other things made to the deceased, or for goods taken away in his life, they shall pay no costs by m Stat. 17 Car. II. c. 8. try's case, I And. 241. S.C. Savile, 118. And ejectment may be maintained by a personal representative for lands held for a term of years, whether the ouster were after or before the death of the deceased. Slade's case, 4 Rep. 92, 95. Doe d. Shore v. Porter, 3 T. R. 13. So he may have an action of debt on Stat. 2 & 3 Ed. 6. c. 13. for not setting out tithes due to the testator, Moreton's case, 1 Ventr. 30.; or an action on the case against the sheriff, for a false return made in the lifetime of the testator, to a fieri facias, Williams v. Grey, Lord Raym. 40.; or an action of debt, on a judgment against an executor, suggesting a devastavit in the lifetime of plaintiff's testator. Berwick v. Andrews, ib. 973. In like manner, it has been holden, that an administrator may maintain an action against the bailiff of a liberty for executing a fieri facias, and removing the goods off the premises, before the landlord (the intestate) was paid a year's rent, pursuant to the stat. 8 Ann, c. 17. Palgrave v. Windham, Stra. 212. But the statute does not give trespass to an executor for a clausum fregit or trees cut down in the lifetime of his testator. De Mason v. Dixon, Sir W. Jones, 174. See also Williams v. Breedon, 1 Bos. & Pul. 329. any statute". Executors and administrators, when suing in the right of the deceased, shall pay no costs: for the statute 23 Hen. VIII. c. 15. doth not give costs to defendants, unless where the action supposes the contract to be made with, or the wrong to be done to, the plaintiff himself. And when an executor must declare as executor, he shall pay no costs: but if the cause of action arises in the time of the executor, and is therefore a matter within his knowledge, and for which he may declare in his own right, and need not declare as executor, he shall be liable to pay costs P. — On a question, whether an executor should be permitted to discontinue, without payment of costs. For the plaintiff executor, it was urged that an executor should not pay costs in any instance excepting one, viz. where he had brought an action as executor, which he might have brought in his own name; but the court were of opinion, that the giving an executor leave to discontinue, was matter of discretion in the court; and they ought not to give him such leave, in any case where he hath knowingly brought his action wrong, unless he will consent to pay costs 9. On a judgment of non prosequitur, for the executor's wilful delay he shall pay costs $ (16). "New. Abr. tit. Costs. 9 Bur. 1451. Non prosequitur, or, as it is usually termed, non pros., is where any person commences an action and does not declare, either the term the writ is returnable, or before the end of the ensuing term; the defendant against whom the action is brought, having appeared, may sign a non pros. at any time in the vacation of such ensuing term. Imp. K.B. Prac. 414. And the plaintiff for thus deserting his complaint, in not pursuing his action, shall not only pay costs, but is liable to be amerced to the king. 3 Black, Com. 296. s Bur. 1548. (16) Where the plaintiff sued as executor, and was nonsuited, upon evidence being given at the trial, that the supposed testator was still alive, the Court refused to allow costs to the defendant; it appearing from affidavits on both sides, to be still at least doubtful, whether the supposed testator was living or not. Zachariah v. Page, 1 Barn. & Ald. 386. And where a plaintiff sued as executor for a |