|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COOMBS v. JORDAN. 295
debtor; and it also appearing, that the guardian of the infant heirs
had come in, and asked to have the surplus paid to him; that a
large sum had been ordered to be paid to him: and that Booth,
the purchaser, was then dead, it became necessary to ascertain the
amount of the purchase money then due; and also from whom it
was to be collected.
Considering a trustee, appointed to make a sale under a decree,
as an officer or agent of the court, bound by the terms and manner
of his appointment, to obey its orders; and to hold himself ready
to account at all times and immediately when called on; and hold-
ing, on the death of such a trustee, that his responsibility, so far
as regards any property which may have come to his hands, in
virtue of the trust reposed in him, devolves upon his personal
representatives; the court deemed it to be entirely within the
scope of its powers; and also to be most beneficial for all con-
cerned to proceed in a summary way against the administrator of
this deceased trustee. (6) Accordingly, upon an order to shew
cause, Henry G. Garner, the administrator of the trustee James
Cook, deceased, without objecting to the legality of such a mode
of proceeding, as indeed he could not, answered so fully as to
shew, admitting the truth of the circumstances set forth by him,
that his intestate had fully discharged his duty in all respects; and
the truth of his answer not having been controverted, the proceed-
ings against him were thus, at once, brought to a close; and he
too was thus discharged from all concern with any further pro-
ceedings in the case.
But on its being also alleged by the heirs of the intestate Jordan,
that there was a large amount of the purchase money unpaid; it
was found that the court could not deliver itself of the property
which it had undertaken to administer, without calling on the pur-
chaser to pay what remained due; and on his failing to do so, to
proceed against him. According to the principles of the English
adjudications there could be no doubt, that the purchaser himself
might, by a summary proceeding, at the instance of any one inte-
rested, be compelled to comply with his contract, and pay the
purchase money. This court, it was confidently believed, might,
upon similar principles, proceed in a like summary manner to en-
force the payment of the purchase money, (e) And it could have
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland, 435; Gilb. Execu. 17.—(e) Andrews v.
Scotton, 2 Bland, 629; Casamajor v. Strode, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 195.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
