DECREES RESPECTING SURETIES.

No. I.

DECREE FOR CONTRIBUTION AGAINST SURETY AND INDEMNITY FROM PRINCIPAL. (1)

[The plaintiff's testator Thomas Wright, and the defendant George Wright, were co-sureties for the defendant Watson in an agreement for a lease of tolls. Upon the default of Watson, the plaintiff's testator had been compelled to pay. The bill charged that Watson was insolvent, and prayed for contribution.]

His Honour doth order and decree, that it be referred to Mr. E. one &c. to take an account of all sums of money paid by Thomas Wright deceased, in the pleadings named, and the plaintiffs Ann Lawson and Thomas Wright his executors, or any of them, agreeable to the undertaking in the pleadings mentioned, dated &c. and compute interest on such sums of money, at the rate of 41. per cent. per annum, from the times the several payments were made, and tax the plaintiffs their costs of this suit. And it is further ordered, that the defendant George Wright do pay (2) unto the plaintiff's one moiety of what shall be found due for principal and interest as aforesaid, together with their costs of this suit. And it is further ordered, that the defendant George Watson do pay unto the plaintiffs the other moiety of what shall be found due for principal and interest as aforesaid, and do also pay unto the defendant George Wright the principal and interest before directed to be paid by him to the plaintiffs, together with the costs of the said defendant George Wright, to be taxed by the said Master, and also the costs which he shall pay unto the plaintiffs under the direction before given. And

for the better taking of the said account &c. [See Usual Directions, No. II. ante.] And any of the parties are to be at liberty to apply &c. [See Usual Directions, No. XIX. ante.] Lawson v. Wright, M. R. 14th November, 1786. Reg. Lib. B. 1786. fol. 51. S. C. 1 Cox, 275.,

NOTES.

(1) Decrees relating to Sureties.

On a bill by a surety for contribution, the principal will be decreed to indemnify the plaintiff and his co-surety. Lawson v. Wright, supra.

So upon a bill by the creditor against the principal and surety, and a decree against the surety; leave will be given to the surety to prosecute the decree against the principal for indemnity. Walker v. Preswick, 2 Ves. 622. And see Further Directions, No. II. post.

So upon a bill by co-sureties, and a decree against them, leave will be given to prosecute the decree against the principal for indemnity, and against each other for contribution. See Decree in Greerside v. Benson, 3 Atk. 253, note.

(2) The decree is for payment in the first instance, without reserving further directions. See Reservation of Further Directions, Usual Directions, No. XV. ante.

DECREE ON FURTHER DIRECTIONS FOR INDEMNIFYING SURETY.

[By the original decree the defendant Godfrey was ordered to pay what should be found due from him to the plaintiffs, at such time as the Master should appoint; in default of which, the defendants Woolball and wife were to pay it; and the consideration how far they might be entitled to stand in the place of the plaintiffs, and to have the benefit of the decree against Godfrey, was reserved.]

It appearing to the Court that the defendant Woolball and his wife have paid to the plaintiffs what was reported due to the plaintiffs by the Master's report, dated the 14th day of May last, for their demands and costs of this suit, his Lordship doth declare that the defendant Godfrey ought to indem

nify the defendants Woodball and his wife, in respect of such payment, and to reimburse them what they have so paid. And it is further ordered that the defendants Woolball and wife be at liberty to prosecute the said decree against the defendant Godfrey, in the names of the plaintiffs, in order to recover against the said defendant Godfrey, what they have so paid to the plaintiffs; and the said defendants Woolball and his wife are to be at liberty to make use of the names of the plaintiffs for that purpose; the said defendants Woolball and his wife indemnifying the plaintiffs against any costs or damages they may be liable to on that account. Weston v. Woolball, L. C. 17th January, 1747. Reg. Lib. B. 1746. fol. 439.

DECREES RESPECTING EXECUTORS

AND TRUSTEES.

No. I.

DIRECTION IN DECREE WHERE EXECUTORS ADMIT ASSETS.

And it is further ordered, that such part of the personal estate of the said testator, as shall upon the said account appear to have come to the hands of the said Tyndal, be answered by the defendants Richardson and Appleton, his executors, they having admitted assets of their said testator. Hargrave v. Richardson, L. C. 9th July, 1753. Reg. Lib. A. 1752. fol. 566. S. C. 1 Bro. 136. note.

No. II.

WHERE ASSETS NOT ADMITTED.

And what shall appear to have been received by the said James Hunt the son, of the said James Hunt the father's personal estate, is to be answered by the said defendants Fowke and Threlkeld his executors out of his assets in a course of administration. And if they shall not admit assets of the said James Hunt the son before the Master, then they are to come to an account before the said Master for his personal estate received by them or either of them, or by any other person, by their or either of their order, or for their or either of their use. Bowen v. Prentis, L. C. 9th November, 1747. Reg. Lib. A. 1747. fol. 113.

NOTE.

Further Directions.

In Attorney-General v. Cornthwaite, 2 Cox, 45. the executors not having admitted assets, and an account having been taken of the personal estate received by them, but not of the debts, the Lord Chancellor directed the Master to review his report, and state whether the balances respectively found due from the defendants the executors, would, by reason of any specialty or other debts due from the testator, be the respective balances coming from them, to be applied in a course of administration.

It seems, therefore, that if assets are not admitted, the account should be taken as in a creditor's suit.

No. III.

DIRECTION IN DECREE AGAINST EXECUTORS, CHARGING THEM WITH INTEREST ON BA

LANCES.

And the said Master is to take an account of the monies and estate of the said testator, which remained in the hands of his executors, or either of them, unapplied, at the end of twelve months from his death; and also an account of all sums of money received by them or either of them, or by any other person or persons by their or either of their order, or for their or either of their use (1) subsequent to that time; and is to compute interest at the rate of 41. per cent. per annum on the balances in their or either of their hands at the end of the said twelve months. And the said Master, in taking the said accounts, is to make half-yearly rests (2); and charge the said defendants with interest after the rate aforesaid, upon the balances which shall appear from time to time to have been in their hands respectively. Smith v. Wilkinson, L. C. 9th February, 1798. Reg. Lib. B. 1797. fol. 363.

For minutes of same decree. See 2 Newl. Pract. 335.

NOTES.

(1) Wilful Default.

In Bulstrode v. Bradley, 3 Atk. 582. it is said, that it is the constant practice of the Court in decrees against executors to account,