Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/370

334 334 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Of course the representative, who, even bond fide, pays legacies without protection of a court order, is Uable to creditors for a devas- tavit, if the assets later prove insufficient to meet their demands.^^^ Do the creditors also have a direct right against the legatees who have received more than their equitable share? This liability of beneficiaries was early settled in the English law.^^ And it is not necessary to-day to join the personal representative.^^^ Further- more the right of the creditor is inferentially recognized in Lord St. Leonard's Act (1859).^^^ In the United States the right of the belated creditor to proceed directly against the legatee or distrib- utee is clearly settled, unless as in Illinois the statute of pre- sentment in terms or by construction bars him.^^^ There is clearly a right in equity, as many of the foregoing decisions show. The suit was at law in McClure v. Dee, supra; Rohrbaugh v. Hamblin, supra; Johnson v. Libby, supra; South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, supra. An action at law was denied in Hendricks v. Keeser}^^ The right of the creditor to proceed directly against the benefi- V. Franco, 3 Ves. Jr. 75 (1796); Greenwood j). Wakeford, i Beav. 576 (1839); Robinson V. Evans, 7 Jur. 738 (1843); Baynard v. Woolley, 20 Beav. 583 (1855); Carson v. Sloane, L. R. 13 Ir. 139 (1884); Zimmerman v. Kinkle, 108 N. Y. 282, 15 N. E. 407 (1888); Abbott V. Reeves, 49 Pa. 494 (1865); Mansfield v. Wardlow, 91 S. W. 859 (Tex. Civ. App.) (1905). m 2 Williams, Executors, 10 ed., 1078, 1436; Knatchbull v. Feamhead, 3 Myl. & Cr. 122 (1837); Clegg V. Rowland, L. R. 3 Eq. 368 (1866). ^ Anon., I Vem. 162 (1683); Hodges i>. Waddington, 2 Vent. 360 (1795); Gillespie V. Alexander, 3 Russ. Ch. 130, 136, 137 (1826); March v. Russell, 3 Myl. & Cr. 31 (1837); In re Eustace, [191 2] i Ch. 561. ^ Hunter v. Young, 4 Exch. D. 256 (1879). ^* Stat. 22 & 23 Vict., c. 35, § 29. »2« Hall V. Brewer, 40 Ark. 433 (1883); Gibson v. Mitchell, 16 Fla. 519 (1878); Blair V. Allen, ss Ind. 409 (1876); Stevens :;. Tucker, 87 Ind. 109 (1882); Security Fire Ins. Co. V. Hansen, 104 Iowa, 264, 73 N. W. 596 (1897); McClure v. Dee, 115 Iowa, 546, 88 N. W. 1093 (1902); Rohrbaugh v. Hamblin, 57 Kan. 393, 46 Pac. 705 (1896); Johnson v. Libby, in Me. 204, 88 Atl. 647 (1913); Forbes v. Harrington, 171 Mass. 386, 50 N. E. 641 (1898); Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 63 N. W. 1069 (1895); ■Walker V. Deaver, 79 Mo. 664 (1883); Hall v. Martin, 46 N. H. 337 (1865); Chitty v- Gillett, 46 Okla. 724, 148 Pac. 1048 (1915); South Milwaukee Co.». Murphy, 112 Wis. 614, 88 N. W. 583 (1908). In some states the right of the creditor is recognized by statute, see Alabama, Code (1907), § 2785; Indiana, Annot. Stats. (1914), §§ 2831-32; Massachusetts, Rev. Laws (1902), c. 135, § 27; Acts (1914), c. 699; Michigan, Comp. Laws (1915)) c. 234, c. 56, § 20; Nebraska, Rev. Stats. (1913), § 1409; Omo, Annot. Gen, Code, §§ 10748, 10877-883; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws (1909), c. 318, §§ 19-25; Vermont, Pub. Stats. (1906), c. 137, § 2915; Wisconsin, Stats. (1915), § 3861. "• 32 Ark. 714 (1878).