This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1863. Excerpt: ... Mary A. Hanenkamp's Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. Francis Borgmier, Plaintiff in Error. m If! 58a II Administrator.--The administrator or executor is entitled to the possession of the personal property and choses in action of the deceased in preference to the next of kin. Where the administrator of an estate, upon final settlement, was ordered to pay to the parties entitled by law, and the intestate left two children, one of whom died pending the administration, upon whose estate letters were granted; held, that the personal representative of the deceased child was entitled to demand the portion of the estate in the hands of the first administrator, and that a payment of the whole balance to the surviving next of kin was no defence to a suit for the half of such balance. Error to Cole Circuit Court. J. L. Smith, for plaintiff in error. The plaintiff had no right to recover on the evidence offered and given in the cause. There was no evidence tending to show that Borgmier, administrator of John Hanenkamp, had notice of the fact that Ewing had administered on the estate of the minor child of his intestate in Cole county, or that there was any demands against her unpaid. Now, Mary Adelaide Hanenkamp and Mary Ann Hanenkamp, on the death of their father, John Hanenkamp, became joint tenants in their father's estate; and after the payment of all debts they would take the money in the hands of the administrator in equal parts; but in the event, as was the case, one died before the estate was finally settled or placed in their possession, then the survivor would take the whole estate, of course subject to the debts of the ancestor. (Black. Com. 149.) The said Mary Ann Hanenkamp being a minor and not having come actually into the possession of her interest...