_ smrru v. mnvmr. 19
representative of Renick Huston, any equity they, or either of them,
may have, for their debts to be paid out of the proceeds of the notes.
4. Of the money received by B. F. Renick from Ayer & Co._the
sum of $10,000 was paid by him through Fay to Palmer C. Smith,
one of the administrators of Benick Huston, and was by him paid
over to those entitled to it under the will of Benick Huston,—one-
third to T. T. Renick, one-third to Mrs. Gregg, and one-third to the
Benick children. To the extent of $10,000, and such of the interest
thereon as constitutes a part of the fund in court, Ayer & Co. are A
_ entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the legatees who had received
the benefit of the money obtained from Ayer dn Co.; but out of this
sum the parties originally liable on the Harvey note held by Ayer & H
Co. are entitled to the sum of $3,140, which was paid through Fay
to Ayer & Go. on that note, and interest thereon from the date of
such payment, so far as that interest hasbeen paid into court.
5. As there is no ground to suppose that T. T. Renick had authority .
to invest— inthe business of Tower, Classen & Co. the money going,
under the will of Renick Huston,Qto his sister, and to the children of
his deceased brother, their interest in the proceeds of the Harvey
notes cannot be held liable for the debts of that firm. Consequently
the administrators of Benick Huston are nowentitled to receive all of
the fund in court except the one-third going tothe estate of Thomas
T. Benick as a legatee under the will of B.enickHuston. p
6. If upon the settlement of the estate of Benick Huston it is found
that the estate of T. T. Benick is entitled to receive any money from
that source, Ayer & Co. and the Westboro bank will be entitled to be
paid out of the proceeds of the respective notes surrendered by them ,
which may remain in court, such sum as will be equal to the aggre-
gate _of the debts of Tower, Classen 8: Co. for which the estate of
Thomas T. Benickwas responsible, and which were liquidated by the
money obtained from them respectively on the faith of the Harvey
notes as collateral security. In other words, they are entitled to
subject to their claims against’B. F. Benick & Co. the interest which
the estate of T. T. Benick may be ascertained to have in the proceeds
of the Harvey notes. i H r V
‘ 7. .The court is not bound to send the parties to another state to A
litigate their rights in and to the fund which will remain here under
this order. It is competent to give in this suitall the relief to which
any of the parties are entitled. The complainants have leave to
amend their pleadings so as to bring all necessary parties before the
court. .. ·