
    Joseph H. Hoell, and Ann his wife, administrator and administratrix de bonis non of William Bonds, deceased, vs. Absolom Blanchard and William Langley, securities, and James Clark administrator of Daniel Carpenter, deceased.
    CASS y.
    
    
      Camden.
    
    Heard before Chancellor GAiriAim.
    The surety to an administration bond cannot bs made liable for the defaults of one of the administrators, by another administrator, although claiming in a different right. The sureties to an administration bond not primarily liable in a court of equity, as in general there is adequate remedy at law.
    The hill states that William Bonds, the first husband of Mrs. Hoeli, died in 1804, possessed of a considerable personal estate. That Daniel Carpenter and the complainant Ann, in August 1804, took upon themselves the administration of the said estate, and gave bond in the usual form to the ordinary, with the defendant Langley and Blanchard as surety. That at the time of the execution of the bond, the complainant Ann was extremely ill, and ignorant of what she was doing; and that she was induced by Carpenter to sign the bond, and submits that she ought not to be bound by that act. That Carpenter received the whole estate. That no part of it was received by her, although she bad pursued the lisual forms of administration, until the 2d May, 1806, when a settlement was had before the ordinary between the complainants and Carpenter. It then appeared that the whole estate, amounting to 1116L Os. 3l(L was in his .hands, one half of which, by order of the said court of ordinary, was paid over by him to the complainant Ann, as her share of the estates of her first husband, and of her son, who had died since his father’s death. That at the* same time the said Ann was discharged from the administration, which was then committed solely to Car-pentcr, who gave the defendant Blanchard as his security to the second administration. That in October, 1806-Carpenter died •, and the complainants were appointed administrator and administratrix dp bonis non of Wm. Bonds’ estate, and thereby had become entitled to receive the remaining half of the said sum of money. The prayer of the bill is for an account and payment of the said sum of money by the administrator of Carpenter, and that Blanchard and Langley might be decreed by reason of the bond aforesaid to satisfy and make good any deficiency. The complainants filed with their bill two exhibits, one containing the petition to the ordinary for a sale of the perishable property of Wm. Bonds,dated 29th September. 1804, and tlie other, an account of those sales, dated 22d October, 1804, both of which were signed by the complainant Ann, as well as by Carpenter.
    
      FEB’Y. 1809.
    
      The defendants Blanchard and Langley separately demurred to tho relief prayed against them.
    [Langley, who is charged on the first bond only, assigns for causes of demurrer.]
    1. That it appears from the bill itself that the complainant Ann is the principal in that bond, and the defendants merely securities.
    2. That there is no breach of the condition of that liond set forth in the bill.
    S. That if such breach had been well assigned in the bill, the remedy was plain and adequate at law by action oñ the bond. Blanchard assigns the same causes’ of demurrer as to the relief prayed against him on the first bond ; and the second and third causes as to the relief prayed against him on the second bond.
    The case was heard by chancellor Gaillard, who delivered the following decree:
    The causes of demurrer are,
    1. That the complainant Ann Hoell signed the. supposed bond to the ordinary as principal and the defendant as security merely.
    
      2. Because no breach is set forth.
    3. Because there is adequate remedy at law.
    The demurrers admit the facts stated by the complainants in the bill. It is true Mrs. Hoell states in the bill that she was ignorant of what she was doing at the time she signed the bond to the ordinary, but it appears from an exhibit filed with the bill, and Hvhicli is to be considered as part of it, that subsequent to her giving the bond, she rendered an account to the ordinary: And it appears further by the bill itself, that in the year 1806, she came to a settlement of the estate of her intestate, William Bonds, with Daniel Carpenter, who had administered on it jointly with her, before the ordinary. At that time, it is stated there appeared to be in the hands of Carpenter 11161. Os. 3§d. one half of which was paid to Mrs. Hoell by the order of thc ordinary as her part of her husband’s estate. The administration of Mrs. Bonds (uow Hoell) was then revoked, and a new administration taken out by Carpenter, with Blanchard as his security. The principal object of the bill is to recover the half of 11161. Os. 3|d. which remained in the hands of Carpenter when the other half of that sum was paid by the order of the ordinary to Mrs. Hoell. It is not said that when this settlement took place in 1806, Carpenter had wasted or not administered properly the assets of the estate which had come to his hands. On the contrary it appears that at that time Mrs. Hoell was satisfied with his conduct as administrator. If Carpenter acted improperly as administrator, he must have done so after taking out the second administration. The first administration having- been revoked, the securities Langley and Blanchard cannot be liable under the first bond to the ordinary for the maladministration of the assets of Bonds’ estate after the revocation. But admitting that Carpcqter liad acted improperly when joint administrator with Mrs. Hoell, and by doing so had made himself and his securities liable to the creditors of William Bonds, (if there are creditors) yet still under the circumstances disclosed by the bill, the court could not hold Langiey and Blanchard liable to Mrs. IIocH in this suit. It will be contrary to tlie nature of the engagement, of securities to do so.— Sureties to an administration bond undertake that the administrator shall administer the assets of the intestate faithfully and according to law, and if the administrator do not so administer them, the sureties become liable under the bond to creditors ; but surely the relation between a principal and the surety is very different from-the relation between a surety and the creditors of an estate. The principal is bound in reason, justice and' equity to stand between his surety and the surety’s responsibility in that character. In this case the principal endeavors to make liable to herself, and for her benefit, her securities Langley and Blanchard, who probably became such at her request; for as widow of the deceased she was entitled to the administration of her husband’s estate. Upon the second bond, Blanchard may be liable. If Carpenter when he became sole administrator acted improperly, and his estate should not be sufficient to pay what may-be due to the estate of Bonds, the complainant will have an opportunity of availing herself of her remedy at law. It appears to the court to be an adequate-remedy.
    it is therefore ordered, that the demurrer, as it relates to the first bond in which Langley and Blanchard were jointly security, be sustained on the first and third grounds made in the said demurrer — And that as far as it respects the second bond in which Mr. Blanchard was security, the same be sustained on the third ground made in the said demurrer, with costs.
    Theodore Gtaxirarr,
    Richardson, for complainant — Standing, for defend • ant.
    From this decree an appeal was made, and the cause was heard at Columbia before the court of appeals, present chancellors Rutledge, James, Thompson, Desaussure and Gaiilard.
    Mr. Richardson, in support of the appeal, contended that the assumption made by the circuit court, that the acts of Mrs. Bonds as administratrix bound her, centra-
      X-y to tbe allegation of tbe bill, was erroneous. For on ¡demurrer tbe court must presume tbe allegations of tbe bill are true. Tbe judge supported tbe third ground of demurrer, because there was a remedy at law. But that remedy is not adequate and complete. There would be a necessity for several suits at law to give a complete remedy, and the court of equity will give relief to prevent multiplicity of suits. See Milford, 103, 104, 108, and if the court has jurisdiction as to part of the subject, it will act upon the whole. A perfect breach of the administration bond has been assigned.
    Mr. Blanding for the respondents argued, that it is not alleged in the bill that Blanchard or Langley induced Mrs. Bonds to sign the administration bonds. And if it were really true that Mrs. Bonds was deranged at tbe -time she signed them, yet it was incumbent on her, when she recovered, to have ceased to act on tbe estate, (if she meant to decline the administration, to which she was entitled,) and to have given notice to her securities of her situation and determination. But instead of that she continued to act for several years, and left her securities Blanchard and Langley under the impression that she was competent and willing to act, and they liable only, as her securities. But if the bond of the principal was bad, surely it was had as to the securities, she could not be free and they bound.
    The 2d cause of demurrer assigned was that no breach was set out. The judge who decided this case was satisfied with giving his opinion on two other grounds. But if the court of appeals should he of opinion that the demurrer should have been sustained on the 2d ground, it may sustain the decree on the 2d ground of the demurrer. The hill of complainant does not pretend that-there was any breach of the first bond — -and does not even make any regular allegation of a breach of the second bond.
   There is complete and adequate remedy at law. Tbe court Will not support a bill against securities in an administration bond, till a right has been established against the principal or administrator. Let any party interested bring a suit against the administrator, anti establish a debt against him at law, or in equity, and then a suit may be brought at law on the bond, against the sureties, who would then be made liable, not before.' — ■- The court after the argument, affirmed the decree of the circuit court.

Yancey, for complainant — Calhoun, for defendant*  