|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SALMON v. CLAGETT. 171
defendants, had any claim as distributees, they have made none,
and therefore, must be presumed to have been satisfied. But, sup-
posing they had not received any satisfaction for their 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)
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, because
of his infancy, be bound by the mortgage as his deed; yet having,
by his answer, failed to assert his right, when thus implicated 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, (n) Hence, as Richard H. Clagett, for
this reason, can, on the one hand, claim no protection of his inte-
rests 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 solemities 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
(m) M'Leod v. Drummond, 17 Ves. 170,—(n) Stackhouse v. Barnston, 10 Ves. 466.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
