Case Name: Crockett McElroy v. James S. P. Hatheway, Ichabod L. Quimby and Carter P. Hooker
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1880-10-20
Citations: 44 Mich. 399
Docket Number: 
Parties: Crockett McElroy v. James S. P. Hatheway, Ichabod L. Quimby and Carter P. Hooker.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 399–402

Head Matter:
Crockett McElroy v. James S. P. Hatheway, Ichabod L. Quimby and Carter P. Hooker.
Accounting by executor in equity — -Residuary legatee’s bond.
"Where a residuarjr legatee has given bond, as executor, to pay the testator’s debts and legacies, a surety on his bond cannot maintain a bill in equity against him. and the co-sureties for an accounting for assets of the estate, the appointment of a receiver, and an administration of the estate by the chancery court.
A surety is presumed to assume Ms responsibility deliberately, and if liis principal fails to meet Ms own obligation with due diligence, he cannot appeal to a court of equity for protection, but must first perform his obligation as surety, and may then sue at law for indemnity.
Where a residuary legatee is made executor, and gives bond to pay his testator’s debts and legacies, the assets of the estate become part of Ms general property, and no more subject to the enforcement of a trust in favor of other legatees.
Appeal from Macomb.
Submitted October 6.
Decided October 20.
Bill for accounting, etc. Bill dismissed below on demurrer. Complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Edgar Weeks and Edwin E. Conely for complainant.
Norris & Uhl for defendants.

Opinion:
Graves J.
In December, 1871, complainant joined as surety with the defendants Quimby and Hooker on the bond given by defendant Hatheway pursuant to the statute as executor and residuary legatee under the will of his father, Gilbert Hatheway, then lately deceased, and about a year ago he filed this bill against his principal and co-sureties for discovery and relief in equity.
The final purpose of the bill is to transfer the whole remedial jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate from the court of probate to the court of chancery, and to compel, by the authority of the latter court, the executor and residuary legatee and the co-sureties to discover and trace from the death of the testator to the present time all parts of the estate, and through a receiver to enforce an absolute surrender by the executor and legatee, of the whole assets to the court in order that it may assume to conduct the administration to final settlement. No such bill can be maintained. The court has no jurisdiction to override the title of a residuary legatee in the way and on the grounds set forth and the complainant has mistaken his remedy if he has any.
There may be cases no doubt when the court, proceeding in accordance with its own maxims and keeping within the limits given to it in this State, would find some way for relieving the surety by hastening the principal and preventing him from using his opportunity to oppress and defraud his surety.
The present bill proceeds on a theory altogether different, .and it was properly dismissed.