
    Dumond, administrator, &c., against Magee and others.
    Where a bill was filed by an administrator, for a decree for the distribution of the intestate’s estate, the answer of a person entitled, as next of kin, to a distributive share, signed by her attorney in fact, and not sworn to, or subscribed by the parly himself, was received, as the party resided in Ohio, and the object" of the suit was merely for the security of the administrator.
    
      November 25th.
    THE object of the bill was to obtain a decree for the distribution of the estate of the intestate among the next of kin, so that the administrator might be protected. The defendant Catharine Hauett was one of the next of kin, and one of the claimants of a distributive share.
    
      M. I. Cantine, for the plaintiff,
    [ * 241 ]
    moved that the answer of the defendant Catharine Hauett might be taken, without *her oath or signature, on an affidavit which he read, that she resided at Miama, in the state of Ohio; and that she had given a full power of attorney, which was set forth in the affidavit, duly executed and authenticated, to her son, Anthony Hauett, residing within this state, to act for her, and collect her debts, and to demand the same by suit, or otherwise, and to compound for the same, &c.
   The Chancellor.

This is not a case in which a discovery is the object of the bill. As it is merely a suit for the safety of the administrator, the object of the motion is reasonable, and it would cause great and useless delay, trouble, and expense, to send a commission to the state of Ohio, for the sole purpose of taking her answer. The case of Gwillin, (6 Ves. 285.) of Bayley v. Delvalkiers, (10 Ves. 441.) and of Harding v. Harding, (11 Ves. 159.) are authorities in support of this course of proceeding.

Order accordingly.

It was directed that the answer should be subscribed by her attorney, and with a copy of the power of attorney annexed thereto.  