onmwmr .2:. nomic; 81
that are submitted for decisionnow. I call attention to the' other
question, also, to show what must have been the result as to the first
plea on the ground of duplicity. The real points in the case, as now
submitted, are, that thereis no evidence in the case to support the
second plea; consequently, the affirmative being on the party plead-
ing the matter to the jurisdiction, the plea must be overruled for
want of evidence; and the other plea in abatement is bad in sub-
stance. The plea is therefore overruled, with costs, with leave to
answer to the merits within 30 days.
Gnnwmr c. Moms and others.
(Uircuil Court, E. D. Michigan. 1884.)
Ras Anmmoir.4 —-Crim aosmsr Esurn—-AmmvrsrasrroN—Surr ro Sumner
REAL Esrscrm ro Psrrrirzvr or- CLAIM.
After a decree of the probate court of Wayne county, Michigan had been
made closing administration of the estate of D., complainant iileci her peti-
tion in that court praying that the deoreemight be set aside, that the admin-
istration might be reopened, and that she be allowed to prove her claim upon
n covenant of D. against his estate, and after hearing her petition was denied.
Held, that complainant was not barred bythe proceedings in the probate court, ‘
· and that she could maintain a suit in equity to obtain satisfaction against the
heirs at law of D. out of real estate descended to them. V
In Equity.
Msrrnnws, Justice. The former decision of this court, overruling
_ the dernurrer to the bill for want of equity, is conclusive of the question
of the right of the complainant to the relief prayed for, upon the
facts stated in the bill. The object of the bill is to obtain satisfac-
tion against the heirs at law of Peter Desnoyers, out of real estate
descended to them, upon a covenant of their ancestor, notwithstand-
ing the fact that administration of his estate in the probate court
according to the laws of Michigan has been settled and closed, and
the administrator discharged, so that no suit at law or in equity
could now be prosecuted in any state court for the recovery of the
debt. The new matter relied on as adefense in the answer of the
defendants, and not covered by the decision of the demurrer, is that
the complainant is bound and barred by the proceedings in the pro-
bate court of Wayne county, Michigan, where the administration was
prosecuted. Whether this is so or not, depends upon whether the
complainant became a party to those proceedings. It is alleged that
she did so, because on May 6, 1882, after a decree of the probate
court had been made closing the said administration, the complainant
filed herpetition in that court praying that such decree might be set
aside, that the administration might be reopened, and that complain-
ant might be let in to prove her claim against the estate; that this