|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST v. MACKALL. 519
given him as against the personal estate, (w) And, consequently,
it will not only be necessary here to place the mortgage debt,
claim No. 4, and the judgment debts, claims No. 11, 35 and 36,
altogether upon the estate bound by those liens, in order to let in
the general creditors, whose claims are not barred by the act of
limitations as against the personalty, to obtain what they can from
that fund; but also, for the purpose of having the absolute judg-
ments, which as regards each other, stand upon an equal footing,
first satisfied out of that fund, so that the heirs, who must be
allowed to be substituted for them, may obtain reimbursement from
the administrator himself, to the amount of their inheritance taken
to satisfy the balance of those judgments. For the amount of
which balance there must be a decree over in favour of those judg-
ment creditors; or after all the creditors have been fully satisfied
in favour of the heirs, who, for so much, have a right to be substi-
tuted for those creditors against the administrator against whom
those absolute judgments have been rendered, (x)
I shall therefore direct, that the proceeds of the sale of the real
estate be applied first in full satisfaction of the mortgage and judg-
ment debts, claims No. 4, 11, 35 and 36, according to their respec-
tive priorities and rights as against others; that the personal estate
be first applied in full satisfaction of the absolute judgments ren-
dered against the administrator; and then, that the residue of the
personalty, if any, be applied in satisfaction of those claims which,
as against it, have not been barred by the statute of limitations.
The claims of these plaintiffs, designated in the auditor's report
as claims No. 1, 2 and 3, have been established by the decree of
the 4th of May, 1830; and, therefore, cannot now be impeached
by any creditor coming in under that decree; unless upon the
ground of mistake, fraud, or collusion with the defendants, (y)
No objection of that kind has, however, been made or alluded to;
and, therefore, the exceptions against them must be overruled.
But then although these plaintiffs had, previously to the institution
of this suit, obtained absolute judgments at law against the admi-
nistrator of the deceased; yet having alleged in their bill, that there
was not a sufficiency of personal estate to satisfy their claims; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(w) Martin u. Martin, 1 Ves. 212; Lowthian v. Hasel, 4 Bro. C. C. 171; Ham-
mond v. Hammond, 2 Bland, 361. —(x) Walker v. Preswick, 2 Ves. 022; Ellicott v.
Welch, 2 Bland, 247, —(y) Harrison v.. Rumsey, 2 Ves. 488; Welch v. Stewart, 2
Bland, 38.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
