552 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND.

concealments, it was enacted, that the Court might in a summary
way, cite such persons before it and examine and decide on the
matter. 1719, ch. 14, s. 7. Here the distributees having a right
to the administration are specially designated, and it is expressly-
declared, that they shall not retain or hold any of the personal es-
tate of the deceased; and if they do conceal any of it. they are
made liable in a summary way, as wrong-doers.

If the law were otherwise; and if each creditor and every one
next of kin were allowed to help himself to what he thought his
due; to seize upon and in any manner by his own act alone ac-
quire a legal right to the personal property of an intestate, the
greatest confusion would ensue, and the most monstrous frauds
might be perpetrated. No letters of administration would be taken
out in any case; but, on the death of every one who had left any
* personal estate, worth contending lor, a disorderly scramble
566 would take place; and those resident at a distance, infants,
and all others who were unable to take care of their own interests
would be openly and wantonly defrauded, "to the great dishonor
of the dead and deceit of the living." Such a course could not be
tolerated in any shape, or for an instant. Mountford v. Gibson, 4
East, 446.

Hence the indispensable necessity, in all cases, of a regular
administration; and of compelling all, as well creditors as next of
kin, to resort, for the payment of their claims and distributive por-
tions, to an administrator. It is not pretended, that these next of
kin of Anthony Hook obtained anything, any right whatever from
his administrators. Consequently, having derived no right from
either of the administrators; and none having been cast upou them
by mere operation of law, they never had the power, iu any man-
ner, legally to dispose of any of the personal estate of the deceased,
or to do any act which could at all affect the right of the present
plaintiff.

Leave was asked and obtained, on the 7th of February, 1823,
to make James Hook, the son of the late John Hook, a defendant;
who on the same day filed his answer to the amended bill. And
in a kind of amended or duplicate bill, filed on the 23d of July,
1824, James Hook is once incidentally spoken of as a defendant;
no process was ever prayed against him by either bill, but by an
agreement, filed on the 4th of November, 1826, he is admitted to
be a party defendant. This persou is no otherwise noticed in the
proceedings. No charge whatever has been made against him;
nor does it appear, that he can in any degree be made liable for any
part of the subject in controversy, either in his individual capacity
or as heir or next of kin of his father the late John Hook, or of his
grandfather the late Anthony Hook. The presence of this defend-
ant James Hook, appears to be in no way necessary; and there-
fore I shall for the present take no further notice of him.