
    Mackinson versus Mackinson.
    1. The Court of Common Pleas have no jurisdiction of a bill in equity, by a remainderman, to compel the executor of a tenant for life to apply the assets in his hands to discharge the arrearages of ground-rent, which accrued during the enjoyment of the life estate.
    In Equity. — Appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, dismissing complainant’s bill.
    Thomas Mackinson died in 1823, leaving by his will two lots of ground in Lancaster, with a dwelling house thereon, to his wife Mary Mackinson during her life; giving her liberty, in case of real need, to take up money from time to time upon the property bequeathed to her, to relieve such wants; with remainder to his executors to sell, &c. Mrs. Mackinson took possession of the property and enjoyed the rents, issues and profits thereof, to the time of her death, which occurred on the 30th of August, 1853. The defendant, her executor, filed an inventory of her personal estate, amounting to $1539.87, to wit, goods and chattels appraised at $144.12, cash $87.75, bond and mortgage with interest, $1308.
    The lots thus devised by Thomas Mackinson to his widow, were subject to a ground-rent or rent charge to John B. Newman, trustee of Hamilton’s heirs, of four pounds sterling per annum. This rent Mrs. Mackinson for many years omitted to pay; and at the time of her death the arrearages had accumulated, with interest, to the sum of $1045.58. This bill 'was brought to require her executor to pay to John B. Newman in relief of the inheritance, the said sum of $1045.58, with its interest, together with $14.57, costs of suit on a judgment obtained therefor by Newman against the estate.
    The Court of Common Pleas, Hayes, J., dismissed the bill, and complainant appealed.
    
      Franklin, for appellant.
    — A tenant for life is obliged to keep down incumbrances affecting the inheritance. 1 Cruise, Dig. 90; Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Browne’s Chanc. Cas. 128. And reversioner may file a bill to make the rents amesnable, and compel the tenant for life to answer for what had accrued. Ld. Perhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. jr. 106; Bertir v. Ld. Abingdon, 
      3 Merrivale, 566; Huddlestone v. Whelpdale, 15 Eng. Law & Equity, 220; Story’s Eq. Jurisp. § 488. And tenant for life is to be considered as a quasi trustee for tbe remainderman. King v. Sharp, 6 Hump. 55.
    
      Stevens and Eshleman, for appellee.
    — A tenant in tail is not bound to keep down the interest of an incumbrance, because be has the power to make himself absolute owner against tbe remainderman and reversioner. 1 Story’s Eq. Jurisp. § 488 ; 1 Ves. sen. 480, 481; 8 P. Wm. 234, 235. Tbe Statute of Limitations is a bar in equity as well as at law, and advantage may be taken of it by pleading it or by way of answer. Story’s Eq. Pl. §§ 484, 503, 751; Prince v. Hylin, 1 Atk. 498.
   Tbe opinion of tbe court was delivered August 14, 1855, by

Lewis, J.

— This is a bill in equity, brought for the benefit of persons entitled to tbe proceeds of real estate in remainder, to compel tbe executor of an alleged tenant for life, to apply tbe assets in bis bands to discharge tbe arrearages of ground-rent which accrued during tbe enjoyment of tbe life estate. We do not see bow tbe jurisdiction in equity is to be sustained in such a case. Tbe Orphans’ Court is the proper tribunal to distribute tbe assets of tbe decedent; and tbe form of procedure is by settlement of tbe administration account, and decree of distribution thereon, among all tbe creditors or persons entitled. In tbe present bill, tbe other creditors, if there be any, are not made parties. If a decree be made for tbe plaintiffs, it would necessarily be for tbe whole of their claim, if tbe assets be sufficient. This might produce gross injustice to other creditors.

Tbe Common Pleas of Lancaster county does not possess general equity jurisdiction. The Act of 16th June, 1836, does not seem to embrace tbe case. A tenant for life may be, in some sort, a trustee for tbe remainderman, but such a tenant is not a trustee within the meaning of that act. He occupies tbe estate in bis own right, and for bis own benefit. He cannot be “ controlled, removed or discharged,” under tbe Act of 1836, as a trustee.

If tbe remainderman should be compelled to pay incumbrances, which tbe tenant for life ought to have- paid, we see no reason why they coulu not apply to tbe Orphans’ Court for a decree of distribution, awarding to them such portion of tbe assets of tbe tenant for life as they may be entitled to.

Tbe bill was dismissed, and we affirm tbe decree of tbe Common Pleas, upon tbe ground that that court bad no jurisdiction in equity over tbe case made by tbe bill. This is of course without prejudice.

Decree affirmed.  