42 Ky. 217 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1842
delivered the opinion-of the Court.
The proof that Edmund B. Barker, one of the sureties of the administrator, had stated, in substance, that he had purchased land in Missouri and intended to go there in the fall to live, and persuaded an acquaintance to go with him and settle in his neighborhood, proved by one witness and corroborated by another, connected with the fact, that he did go away in the fall, and was absent at . , . . . . . ... the time this suit was instituted against him as a non-resident, and did not return till the following month, was sufficient to justify the suit against him as a non-resident, and to sustain the attachment awarded: and the more especially as it does not appear that he has since taken -up his residence in Kentucky. But the debt should be first •made out of the principal, if it can be, rather than out of the surety.
We have no doubt that a Chancellor who delights to do .final, full, -and complete justice at once, may bring the administrator and his sureties, as well as the heirs and all other necessary parties before him, and may determine whether a devastavit has been committed, and render a decree 'to meet that state of case, and afford full redress, without leaving the complainant to prosecute another suit to attain it.
And if a devastavit be found as the means of affording "full redress, in any and every contingency, a decree should, in the general, be rendered, to be levied, first of the assets in the hands of the administrator, -if any, if none, then to be levied of his own estate, 'if any, if none, then to be levied of the estate of his sureties, if any, if 1 , , , | . , , , , none, then to be levied of the estate which descended to the heirs. And in this case, as a devastavit has been clearly shown, such-a decree should have .been rendered,
Decree reversed and cause remanded, that further proceedings may be had as indicated in this opinion.