
    Daniel Shannon v. Rebecca Shannon et al.
    
      Claims against decedents.
    
    A man cannot maintain a bill in equity against his brother’s estate, after the estate has been closed by distribution, to recover the share for ■which his brother would have been liable, had he lived, upon a mutual contract to support their mother. It is not a case for specific performance and there is no authority to decree payments from distributees in favor of a creditor at large.
    Where a decedent’s debts are not secured on property, they must be-enforced under the probate laws.
    Appeal from St. Joseph.
    Submitted April 12.
    Decided April 19.
    Bill to enforce payment from an estate under a contract-with decedent.
    Dismissal affirmed.
    
      O. P. Coffinberry for complainant appellant.
    
      O. J. Fast and Chas. Upson for defendants.
    Estates are-not settled in chancery but in probate proceedings : Holbrook v. Campau, 22 Mich. 288; Green v. Probate Judge 40 Mich. 244; Shelden v. Walbridge 44 Mich. 251; Dickinson v. Seaver id. 624; Pitcher v. Douglas 37 Mich. 341; Buchoz v. Pray id. 512: 36 Mich. 429; Kellogg v. Aldrich 39 Mich. 576; and if the claimant neglects the statutory" method he has no remedy at law or in equity: Winegar v. Newland 44 Mich. 367; Clark v. Davis 32 Mich. 154; nor can a court of equity create a lien on land to secure a personal debt: Bennett v. Nichols 12 Mich. 22; Griswold v. Fuller 33 Mich. 268.
   Campbell, J.

Complainant filed his bill against defendants, who are widow and heirs of his deceased brother, Wesley Shannon, whose estate has been closed by distribution, claiming that he has a ground of relief arising out of a contract made with decedent in 1872, that they should mutually support their mother, Christina Shannon. The bill sets up the allowance of an account in favor of complainant1 for such support by commissioners of the estate up to the time of its presentation, and his present application is for relief touching what has accrued since, and what may hereafter accrue.

Without going at large into the allegations of the bill, which was demurred to for want of equity, we have not been able to discover a.ny foundation for such a suit. The case is not one for specific performance, and there is no authority to decree payment from distributees by a creditor at large. Debts which are not secured on property must be enforced under the probate laws. We need not consider what remedy may exist in that form in the present condition of affairs. It is very certain that the present suit is anomalous and not maintainable.

The decree dismissing the bill must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  