108 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. penalty will be imposed upon him than the payment of such costs as have been occasioned by his coming in so late. 1 But if the money be paid out of court before his claim is presented, all that the court can do for him is to permit him to file a bill against the person or persons upon whom his debt would have fallen, if it had been paid, to compel him or them to pay his debt out of what he or they have received from the estate; and this it will generally permit him to do. But if the debt, in case it had been paid, would have fallen upon several persons, he will be permitted to recover only a pro rata share from each, and not the whole from any one. 2 Here then is one instance in which equity completely admin- isters the estate of a deceased person by means of an ordinary suit, and does so, as is believed, without introducing any anomaly, and without violating any of the principles of procedure. It is true that we have the spectacle of a suit, brought by A against B, being used as a means of satisfying a claim made by C against B, C being no party to the suit. Under ordinary circumstances, this would undoubtedly be inadmissible; but, under the peculiar cir- cumstances of the case now under consideration, it seems to be open to no objection. A cannot object because the payment of C's claim is a necessary condition of his obtaining the relief which he seeks. B cannot object, as he is in no way prejudiced. If C's claim be not well founded, he will have a full opportunity to resist it ; and if he cannot successfully resist it in A's suit, he may, as has been seen, provided he can raise a reasonable doubt of its validity, require C to bring an action against him to establish it. B cannot object to being called upon to pay a claim of C in a suit brought for the sole purpose of compelling payment of a claim of A, for he has nothing to do with paying either. He pays the money into court in any event ; and he has no concern with what afterwards becomes of it. Can C complain of being required to come in and prove his claim in A's suit, at the peril of the estate's being administered without regard to his claim? It seems not. He has the fullest facilities for establishing his claim, even to the extent of bringing an action for that purpose, if necessary. It is true that the estate 1 Lashley v. Hogg, 1 1 Ves. 602 ; Angell v. Haddon, 1 Madd. 529 ; Brown v. Lake, 1 DeG. & Sm. 144. 2 Gillespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130; Greig v. Somerville, 1 R. & M. 338. Com- pare 1 Davies v. Nicolson, 2 DeG. & J. 693.
