SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 187

respective distributive shares, they have, by this their own deed,
completely bound up and mortgaged the whole of their interest,
whatever it may be, to its utmost extent. M'Leod v. Drummond,
17 Ves. 170.

Richard H. Clagett by his answer relies upon the fact of his
having been an infant at the time he signed the mortgage, as an
ample defence for himself. The fact of his infancy is fully estab-
lished by the proofs. He. however, asks for himself no more than
to be discharged from the obligatory force of the deed; and to
have it treated as a nullity so far as it is made the foundation of
any claim against him. But he makes no claim of his distributive
share of the intestate's estate in any form. He does not allege,
that he has not been satisfied by this administratrix to the full
amount of his distributive portion. So far from making any such
assertion of his own individual rights in opposition to this deed,
he plants his defence against it, apart from the allegation of his
infancy, in all respects, upon the same ground taken by all the
other defendants. And consequently, although he cannot, be-
cause of his infancy, be bound by the mortgage as his deed; yet
having, by his answer, failed to assert his right, when thus impli-
cated and called on to do so, he must be considered as having
waived all objection to this mortgage on the ground of its having
made any improper disposition of his interests inconsistent with
the office and duty of the administratrix. Stackhouse v. Barnston,
10 Fes. 460. Hence, as Richard H. Clagett, for this reason, can,
on the one hand, claim no protection of his interests in this suit:
so, on the other; because of his infancy, there can be no decree
against him. I shall therefore dismiss the bill as to him.

It has been urged, however, that although this administratrix
might have had sufficient power so to dispose of the assets; or that
the questionable, disposition thus made of them, had been fully
affirmed by the distributees; yet that the instrument by which it
was proposed to be effected, not having been recorded, is, in that
respect, deficient in one of the solemnities necessary to constitute
a valid mortgage.

By the common law, to make a valid deed certain forms and cere-
monies are indispensably necessary, in that way, to manifest the
* deliberate will of the contracting parties; and it is admitted
that this mortgage has all the common law requisites of a 172
binding deed. But the legislative enactments here, which require
deeds to be recorded, like those of England requiring enrollment,
are universally admitted to have been intended to preserve the
evidence of the contract; and to prevent the practice of fraud
upon creditors and purchasers. The object was to furnish the
means of notice and a protection to innocent third persons, not
parties to the contract. It never has been held, that those laws
altered any principle of the common law, or required any thing, in