|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEWITT'S CASE. 185
The defendant Rezin D. Hewitt, by his answer, admitted, that
the property in the bill mentioned was incapable of division; and
therefore prayed, that it might be sold. And at the same time the
solicitor of the parties recommended Doctor Haines Goldsborough,
of Anne Arundel county, as a suitable person to be appointed as
guardian of the lunatic defendant.
12th February, 1831.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that Doc-
tor Haines Goldsborough, of Anne Arundel county, be, and he is
hereby appointed guardian of the said defendant Jacob Hewitt, a
lunatic, with full power and authority to answer the said bill of
complaint in his behalf, and in all respects to defend and sustain
his rights and interests so far as the same may be involved in this
suit. __________
After which the lunatic defendant, by Goldsborough his guar-
dian, answered, that he believed it would be to his advantage, that
the property mentioned in the bill of complaint, should be sold.
12th March, 1831.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The special and dis-
tinctly expressed object of this bill is to obtain a partition of an
intestate's estate among his heirs. There can be no doubt, that
this court has jurisdiction to make partition of real estate claimed
either by descent, or by purchase; (b) nor can it be doubted, that
this court has the power to make partition of any personal pro-
perty among its several owners; for indeed it has been said, that
a partition of personal estate can only be enforced by a court of
equity, (e) But this bill does not allege that these parties, or any
of them, are at present in actual possession of the chattels real
of which the intestate died possessed; on the contrary, it has
been verbally admitted, that these chattels real passed into the
hands of his administrator; and yet remain to be accounted for by
him. The administrator of the intestate has not been made a
party to this suit; nor could be, with propriety, have been made
a party solely for the purpose of obtaining a partition of any of the
personal estate in his hands; because the power to make a distri-
bution of the surplus of the personal estate remaining in the hands
of his administrator has been conferred upon the Orphans Court;
with which this court should not interfere; except on account of
some special circumstances to which the powers of the Orphans
Court may not be altogether adequate. Nothing of the sort has
(b) Corse v. Polk, 1 Bland, 233, note; 1831, ch. 311, s, 7.—(c) Smith v. Smith,
4 Band. 95; Crapster v. Griffith, 2 Bland, 25.
24 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
