In re WOLO. PETITION BY CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE FOR RELIEF FROM SURCHARGE.

Argued April 21, 1970. Decided June 12, 1970. 1. When a proceeding has been closed, a petition for reargument must be presented to the Supreme Court before the merits of newly presented matter relating thereto will be considered by the Court When a petition seeks an order from the Supreme Court directed to a person, such person must be properly before the Court as a party to the proceeding for such order to be contemplated by the Court, for it has otherwise acquired no jurisdiction over the person where in Personam jurisdiction is required to effect the powers of the Court. 2. In the case of a petition pending since 1962, petitioner was the surviving co-administrator of an estate to which he had paid an amount ordered by the Supreme Court, as restitution of funds missing in the accounts of the estate, discovered after audit. In his petition he claimed that subsequently he discovered that his deceased coadministrator had appropriated income belonging to the estate. He sought a reopening of the case in which he had been ordered to pay the missing funds and an order directing the executrix of the estate of the deceased coadministrator to repay him the amount he had been charged with, from the assets of the estate she represented. The Supreme Court held that the petition could not be granted, since no petition for reargument of the case in which he had been surcharged had been presented. Moreover, the petition demanded relief the Court could not grant, since the executrix was not a party before the Court in these proceedings and, therefore, no order could be addressed to her because of lack of jurisdiction over her person. P. Amos George for petitioner. 40 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON 41 delivered the opinion of the Court. This submission has been in our files since April 28, 1962, some eight years. It was filed by William H. Ketter, formerly one of the administrators of the estate of Juah Weeks Wolo, deceased. Inter alia, the submission averred that the petitioner, James Dennis, and Peter D. Gurley, were appointed administrators of the estate of Juah Weeks Wolo. They were not required to execute and file a bond at the Probate Court. The petition states that James Dennis, shortly after his appointment as Liberian Ambassador to Cairo, relieved himself of his responsibility as coadministrator, thereby causing total responsibility to devolve upon the two remaining administrators in the persons of himself and P. D. Gurley. Subsequently, it was discovered, after an audit, that certain discrepancies existed in respect of the cash deposits on hand to the account of the estate. The auditor’s report showed $3,770.80 as being unaccounted for. In view of this fact, the court ordered payment of the total by Ketter, since his co-administrator had by then died, thereby supposedly attaching to him total liability for the deficit as discovered by the auditor. Petition further states that in accordance with the orders of this Court, he paid out $3,594.35, when he did not in the least benefit from the missing funds owed to the estate. That subsequent to the death of co-administrator, P. D. Gurley, he was informed that the discrepancies had been occasioned by the fact that Gurley had at divers times received and converted to his own use, rents from houses that were the property of the estate. In the circumstances, he applied to this Court for a reopening of the matter and an order directing Mrs. Hanna Gurley, executrix of the estate of the late co-administrator, to re- 42 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS fund to him monies by him paid out upon order of the Court. This Court must hold that it finds itself unable to grant the request made by the petitioner, by virtue of the fact that his case has been duly closed, he has presented no petition for reargument, and the executrix of the estate of P. D. Gurley has not been brought under its jurisdiction, making it impossible for us to render a judgment that would bind her and through her the estate, when in personam jurisdiction has not been acquired. This opinion does not prejudice any other rights that may be available to the petition. Costs disallowed. And it is hereby so ordered. Petition denied.