2 S.C. Eq. 456 | New York Court of Chancery | 1807
afterwards delivered the decree ofthe Court:
Complainant states in his bill that Philip Hawkins, id . i . , . his life time, was indebted to the intestate Thomas Cra-> ven,- in the sum of 7772 pieces of eight and four rials, by his promissory note, dated the 6th of November, 1781.-— ■That the said Philip Hawkins , died in 1781, having first-made his will, and appointed defendant John Owen, and John L. óervais, since deceased', his executors % ánd that the said Philip Hawkins, at his death, left- a considerable private estate, besides Copartnership funds, as one of the copartners of Hawkins, Petrie and company.- That the said Thomas Craven obtained a judgment oil the Said, note in 1789, against the executors of Philip Hawkins, which has not yet been satisfied. Complainant therefore prays that the ¿[efendant may account with him as administrator of the said Thomas Craven, now deceased, and discover what assets of the said Philip Hawkins came info his hands to be administered.
Defendant admits the said judgfíient, subject to the plea oíplene o.dministrmñt. He also admits the said copartner
That the executor received from Henry Laurens, juru part of the funded stock and choses in action of Hawkins, Petrie & company, which he also accounts for, but does not admit that the same was sufficient to pay the debts of the concern. Also, defendant admits that he is indebted to the said estate of Philip Hawkins lllli. 9.?. 2d. for which he states he is ready to account.
Upon this bill and answer, the court are clearly of opinion that they cannot at this day, and with the present parties before them, either reverse or in any manner alter the-decree of 1787. After such a lapse of time, and without all the proper parties before us, i.t is to be prespiped that every thing done by the court at that day was done regularly, and that the decree was made upon the fullest evidence of the point upon which the court decided, viz. that the private estate of Philip Hawkins was purchased with’ the copartnership funds before a settlement of the debts of the concern. Nothing would more shake the title to property in this country, or render its tenure more uncertain’ than thus by a side wind to overturn a decree of this court. But as the defendant John Owen, has made it appear that the copartnership debts are now settled, and that there is jjtill a part of the private estate of Philip Hawkins unadíní.-:
Costs to be paid out of. the'estate.