|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
666 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.
personal estate, worth contending for, a disorderly scramble would
take place; and those resident at a distance, infants, and all others
who were unable to take care of their own interests, would be
openly and wantonly defrauded, Ho the great dishonour of the dead
and deceit of the living. ' Such a course could not be tolerated in
any shape, or for an instant, (o)
Hence the indispensable necessity, in all cases, of a regular
administration; and of compelling all, as well creditors as next of
kin, to resort, for the payment of their claims and distributive por-
tions, to an administrator. It is not pretended, that these next of
kin of Anthony Hook obtained any thing, any right whatever from
his administrators. Consequently, having derived no right from
either of the administrators; and none having been cast upon them
by mere operation of law, they never had the power, in any man-
ner, legally to dispose of any of the personal estate of the deceased,
or to do any act which could at all affect the right of the present
plaintiff.
Leave was asked and obtained, on the 7th of February, 1823,
to make James Hook, the son of the late John Hook, a defendant;
who on the same day filed his answer to the amended bill. And
in a kind of amended or duplicate bill, filed on the 23d of July,
1824, James Hook is once incidentally spoken of as a defendant;
no process was ever prayed against him by either bill; but by an
agreement, filed on the 4th of November, 1826, he is admitted to
be a party defendant. This person is no otherwise noticed in the
proceedings. No charge whatever has been made against him;
nor does it appear, that he can in any degree be made liable for any
part of the subject in controversy, either in his individual capacity
or as heir or next of kin of his father the late John Hook, or of his
grandfather the late Anthony Hook. The presence of this defen-
dant James Hook, appears to be in no way necessary; and there-
fore I shall for the present take no further notice of him.
The bills, through a portion of them, seem to consider the next
of kin, or as it calls them, the heirs of the late Anthony Hook,
to be parties to this suit. But they have neither been made plain-
tiffs nor defendants as such; and therefore, all that has been said
or proved about them and their agreements must be rejected as
mere surplusage, William McMechen, a defendant, says he an-
swers 'the bill of complaint of James Neale and others represen-
(o) Mountford v. Gibson, 4 East. 446.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
