Kerr v. Webb

<p>In 1852, plaintiff claiming to be distributee of B., -who was a distrib-utee of W., filed a bill against tbe administrator of W., and the ordinary, * for account, alleging that the estate of B., was derelict. The ordinary answered, denying all intermeddling or notice of assets. In 1854, the plaintiff administered on B’s estate and filed another bill, styling it a supplemental bill, against W., for account: — Held, that the second was. not a supplemental but an original bill.</p> <p>A recovery in trover against the administrator of W,, by one claiming under a deed executed by B., who was a distributee of 'W.jheld, to bar the administrator of B., from demanding an account from the administrator of W., for the value of the slaves thus recovered in trover, or any part thereof, although it appeared, that the verdict in trover was the result of a compromise, and was for much less than the full value of the slaves.</p> <p>On bill by the administratpr of a distributee of W. against W’s administrator for account, a counter claim, consisting of various matters, held, not objectionable because the claims were not in mutual right.</p>