Case Name: William C. Mulford, Joseph Lodge, junior, and Mary A. Dare, Adm'rs of Samuel Dare, v. Benjamin Allen, surviving Ex'r of Benjamin Allen, deceased
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1840-01
Citations: 2 N.J. Eq. 288
Docket Number: 
Parties: William C. Mulford, Joseph Lodge, junior, and Mary A. Dare, Adm’rs of Samuel Dare, v. Benjamin Allen, surviving Ex’r of Benjamin Allen, deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
William C. Mulford, Joseph Lodge, junior, and Mary A. Dare, Adm’rs of Samuel Dare, v. Benjamin Allen, surviving Ex’r of Benjamin Allen, deceased.
An administratrix cannot be made a party complainant in a bill, with her co. administrators, without her consent; and if she claim adversely to the pray, er of the bill, the court upon motion will direct her name to be stricken from the bill as1 a complainant, and to be inserted as a defendant.
A solicitor employed by one of several executors or administrators, and filing a lull in the name of all, will not be compelled to pay costs although the name of one of the administrators be inserted in the bill of complaint without her consent.
Benjamin Allen, the elder, by his will, bequeathed a certain legacy to his daughter, Mary A. Dare, the wife of Samuel Dare. The bill is filed for the recovery of said legacy, by the administrators of Samuel Dare, charging that the legacy had been reduced into possession by the said Samuel Dare in his life-time.
1. II. Williamson,
on behalf of Mary A. Dare, one of the administrators, now moved to strike her name out of the bill as a complainant, and for leave to insert her name as a defendant in the bill, upon the ground that her name had been used without her consent as complainant, and that she claimed the legacy in her own right as survivor, adversely to the claim of her husband’s representatives. He insisted that it was not necessary that the names of all the administrators should be used, and that her name could not be used adversely to her interest without her consent. He insisted further, that where a person was made a party complainant without her consent, the solicitor of the complainant must pay the costs.
[At a subsequent day in term, leave was granted to the complainants, on motion of their solicitor,' to amend the bill accordingly.]
Jeffers, for complainants, contra.
Mary A. Dare is now a party to the bill. Her rights are not prejudiced by being made complainant. The court will protect her interests if she is entitled to the legacy.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
Mary A. Dare has been made a complainant without her consent. She claims adversely to the prayer of the bill. It is not enough that the court will protect her interests. She has a right to stand in such a position that she may set up her claim as she sees fit. As all the parties are before the court, there can be no difficulty In allowing the motion. She must be made a defendant, and permitted to set up her rights in her own way. The rule requiring the solicitor to pay costs for making use of a party's name without consent, cannot apply when he has been applied to by one of several executors or administrators, and has acted in the name of all.
Motion allowed, without costs.