|
|
|
|
|
|
|
296 COOMBS v. JORDAN.
no hesitation, at the instance of any one interested, so to have
proceeded against the purchaser Jeremiah Booth himself; but he
was dead, His liability, however, it was obvious, had, in this
respect, devolved upon his representatives, so far as they had
assets. And therefore, an order was passed, calling on his heir
and administrator to pay the balance of the purchase money, or
shew cause. John Llewellin and wife accordingly, among other
things, shewed for cause, that the deceased purchaser Booth had,
as they alleged, under the authority of the court, and with the
consent of the trustee, made sundry payments to the trustee, and
also to Edmund Key, the guardian of the infant heirs, leaving a
balance still due, &c. Whereupon it was agreed and adjudged,
that no more than $2,018 93 of the purchase money then remained
due. There was no doubt, that the court, as the vendor, for the
benefit of all concerned, to the extent of the purchase money un-
paid, held an equitable lien upon the estate sold to Booth; and
there was no doubt, that in virtue of that equitable lien a re-sale
of the estate might be made for the payment of the purchase
money. Upon those grounds therefore, the trustee Merrick was
appointed; and a re-sale was ordered and made accordingly.
Thus, by a consequence of the original suit, a new contro-
versy arose, after the original plaintiff had been satisfied, and had
departed from the case, between the original defendants, now
placed in the position of plaintiffs against the representatives of
the deceased purchaser as defendants. This new controversy, as
regarded the balance of the purchase money, admitted to be due,
was, by its payment, in that particular, terminated; and the case,
in that respect also, finally brought to a close.
The heirs of Richard Jordan, deceased, had, however, by their
petition alleged, that a large amount of the purchase money had,
during their infancy, under the order of the court, been paid to
Edmund Key, their guardian, by the trustee Cook, and by the pur-
chaser Booth, and been wasted by the said Key, who had thereafter
become and then was insolvent; and that Booth, the purchaser,
hating been bound, in a guardian's bond, as one of his sureties,
they had a lien upon Booths estate for the amount so paid to and
wasted by Key. Therefore, as Key was, as they alleged, no party
In these proceedings, they prayed, that he might be summoned as
such, that they might have the benefit of his answer. It being a
general rule, that all co-obligors must be made parties, it seemed
to have been conceived to be proper thus to ask to have Key
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
