Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/383

PROBLEMS IN PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION 347 The liability of several legatees and distributees, who have been overpaid, is not joint.^^^ Failure to join others is no defense. But, in Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the court may at any time order joined other parties liable.^^^ And in IlHnois the liability is joint.^^^ At common law in England, if the estate had been administered under order of the court, the belated creditor could proceed against any particular legatee or distributee only for such portion of his debt as the value of the legatee's or distributee's share bore to all legacies and shares."^ This rule, however, did not apply when the administration did not take place under order of court.^^^ In this country the authorities are divided, — none of them seem to take the EngHsh distinction. In some jurisdictions the beneficiary is liable up to the full amount of his legacy or share for the plaintiff's claim, and must seek con- tribution in a separate suit from the other beneficiaries."® In other states the defendant is only Hable for his rateable proportion of the debt.^^° A third view makes the defendant liable for a proportional amount unless the others Uable are insolvent or beyond the juris- diction. In that case he must make good the debt up to the amount he has received and seek contribution in another suit.^^^ Perhaps from that date only. Northrop v. Graves, 19 Conn. 548 (1849). And see Gittens v. Steele, i Swanst. 199 (1818); Jervis v. Wolferstan, L. R. iS Eq. 18 (1874); Uffner v. Lewis, s Ont. L. R. 684 (1903). "* Indiana, Annot. Stats. (1914), § 2972; Rubell v. Bushnell, 91 Ky. 251, 15 S. W. 520 (1891); Rohrbaugh v. Hamblin, 57 Kan. 393, 46 Pac. 705 (1896); Massa- chusetts, Rev. Laws (1902), c. 141, § 30; Michigan, Comp. Laws (1915), c 234, c- 56, § 25; Miller v. Shoaf, no N. C. 319, 14 S. E. 400 (1892); Walker v. Deaver, 79 Mo. 664, 679 (1883); Nebraska, Rev. Stats. (1913), § 1414; Ohio, Annot. Gen. Code (1912), § 10882; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws (1909), c. 318, § 22; Gillespie ». Alexander, 3 Russ. 130 (1826). ^^^ See references in preceding note. • "« Cutright V. Stanford, 81 111. 240 (1876). See Lewis v. Overby, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 601, 619 (1879); McClung V. Sieg, 54 W. Va. 467, 46 S. E. 210 (1903). 1^^ Gillespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130 (1826). 1" Davies v. Nicolson, 2 De G. & J. 693 (1858). "» Rubel V. Bushnell, 91 Ky. 251, 15 S. W. 520 (1891); Miller v. Shoaf, no N. C. 319, 14 S. E. 800 (1892). "" Alabama, Code (1907), § 2785; Arkansas, Dig. Stats. (1916), c. i, § 164; Colorado, Annot. Stats. (1912), § 8027; Cutright v. Stanford, 81 111. 240 (1876); Lewis V. Overby, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 601, 618-20 (1879); Kansas, Gen. Stats. (1915), § 4658; Missouri, Rev. Stats. (1909), § 255. And see Michigan, Comp. Laws (19x5), c. 234, c. 56, §§ 23, 25, 28; Nebraska, Rev. Stats. (1913). §§ 1412, 1417; Vermont, Pub. Stats. (1906), c. 137, §§ 2912-20. "^ Indiana, Annot. Stats. (1914), § 2970; Massachusetts, Rev. Laws (1092),