|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEALE v. HAGTHROP. 563
his predecessor cited before the commissary and compelled to ac-
count, (d) But at present, the remedy against an administrator or
his representatives, for any waste or misapplication of the effects
of the deceased, is by an action at law upon his administration
bond by any one interested. For it is expressly declared, that the
authority conferred by letters of administration de bonis non, shall
be to administer all things described in the acts as assets not con-
verted into money and not distributed, or delivered, or retained by
the former executor or administrator, under the direction of the
Orphans Court, (e)
Hence this plaintiff is incompetent to demand, in the represen-
tative character in which he sues, any thing but those goods, chat-
tels, and credits, which his letters authorize him to administer;
that is, the chattels real and personal property of his intestate,
which may be now shewn to remain undisposed of by either of the
previous administrators, John or Mary; or which have been and
continue to be held unaccounted for by any one as trustee or agent
of the late Anthony Hook, his intestate. The statements and alle-
gations of these original and amended bills must, therefore, be
taken subject to the limited rights of the representative character
of this plaintiff.
It appears that some of the next of kin of the late Anthony
Hook, under an impression, that the chattels real of the deceased,
had vested absolutely in them, have disposed of, or attempted to
make a final disposition of the whole, as if such chattels real had
been immediately cast into their hands by the mere operation of
law, in like manner as the real estate of an intestate is at once cast
upon his heirs. If these next of kin acquired, at once, by the act
of the law alone, a legal right to these chattels real, by virtue of
which they might, either concurrently with or independently of the
administrator, dispose of them; then, as the joint or independent
holders of the property in controversy, they ought to have been
made parties to this suit. And, if they have acquired such a legal
right, and have actually disposed of these chattels, then, it is no
less evident, that all claim against these defendants is, so far, en-
tirely at an end. In these points of view the allegations of the
bill, in relation to these next of kin of the intestate, present some
important preliminary inquiries.
(d) 1715, ch. 39, s. 3; Dep. Com. Gu. 55, 57. —(e) 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 14, s. 2;
1820, ch. 174, s. 3; Wankford v. Wankford, 1 Salk. 306; Sibley v. Williams, 3 6.
& J. 52.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
