Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/623

PABMEBS NAT. BANK OB' GbeBNVILI-E, 0., V. GEEBN. 609 ���Fabmers' Nat. Bank ob" GreenviliiH, Ohio, ». Gbeen and �others.* �{Circuit Court, 8. S. 0M>. December 3, 1880.) �1. JlTEUSDICïION OF PeOBATB COURTS IN OHIO— PROCEBDIKaS TO BSUL �Real Estate for thb Patment dp Dkbts. — Probate courts in Ohio, in a proceeding by an administrator to sell real estate for the pay- ment of debts, have jurisdiction to ascertain and adjust the liens thereon, settle priorities amoug lienholders, and apply the proceeds of sale in satisfaction thereof, in the same manner and to the same estent as a court of equity might in like proceedings. �2. Same — Estoppel — Parties.— Its flndings and jùdgments in such pro- �ceedings are conclusive agàinst the parties thereto, and it is imma- terial as to their eflect whether such parties shall appear and answer to the issues and claims made or not, or whether such claims or issues be presented in the petition, or in the other pleadings in the cause. �On demurrer to the first defence in the answer, �Knox e Anderson, for plaintiff. �Bateman d Harper, for defendant. �Baxter, C. J., [orally.) It seems that Francis Waring, who was the husband and intestate of E. J. Waring, the ad- ministratrix now before the court, gave a note for $2,000 to the plaintiff for money borrowed; and James A. Kies and John W. Green were his sureties for the payment of said note, and upoû that note the present suit is brought. For the pro- tection of these sureties Waring executed a mortgage upon his real estate to indemnify them against their liability as sureties. Upon the death of the principal the administratrix filed a petition in the probate court of Drake county, Ohio, for the payment of debts, prayipg for a sale of the land of said Francis Waring, in which she made Eies and Green, the sure- ties, together with the bank, parties, and asked that the amount of the lien be ascertained and declared, and that the land be sold to the end that she might have the benefit of the surplus remaining after paying the note. The court heard the case with ail these parties before it, and ascertained and decreed that the only amount due on the note for $2,000 was $748.49. �*Reported by Florien Glauque and J, C. Harper, of the Cincinnati bar. v.4,no,7— 39 ����