Page 102
Hill against Bird.
Pasc. 24 Car. Banc. Reg.
VPon a rule of Court to shew cause why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Prerogative.* 1.1 Latch stated the Case to be this: A man dyed intestate, the Daughter of the Brother of the Intestate (her Father being dead) procures Letters of Administration, and a Son of the Sister of the Intestate sues in the Prerogative to revoke the administration, or to have distribution of the Goods; the Administrator prays a Prohibition; and hereupon he prays, that either no Prohibition at all is to be granted, or else it must be special.* 1.2 Roll Iustice, The Daugther of the Brother, and the Brother of the Sister of the Intestate are in equal degree of kindred, and the Ordinary may grant administration to which he pleaseth.* 1.3 Latch urged, that the admini∣stration was not yet setled: for it was granted upon Condition, and if the Ad∣ministrator will not bring in an inventory, the Ordinary may alter the administration. Hales on the other side prays, there may be a general Pro∣hibition cuiliber, &c. Roll Iustice, The Prohibition must be against some cer∣tain person; but if divers have appeared to sue, there a Prohibition shall be against all of them, and the Iurisdiction of the Court cannot be enlarged by the agreement of the parties,* 1.4 Hob. Tucker and Bo••es Case. And an admi∣nistration cannot be revoked, for the not bringing in of the Inventory and Accompt by the Admnistrator. The libel was afterwards read, which was to have distribution of the Goods, or else to reverse the Letters of admi∣mi••••••tration, and upon this the Court granted to a Prohibition, if cause be not shewn upon notice to the contrary, as to the Distribution, but not gene∣rally.