The plaintiff’s administrator asks for license to sell two tracts of land of the estate of his intestate to pay •debts, and we agree with his Honor that he is entitled to the ■license. But Sally Pitts, the widow of the intestate, comes .in and asks to be made a defendant, and claims as her individual property one undivided eighth part of one of the tracts, the Miller tract, and that the same shall be allotted ■-to her. The clerk refused to allow her to litigate her rights, upon the ground that he had no power to try the title. The case was appealed from the clerk to. the Judge, and he .affirmed the decision of the clerk.
In this we think his Honor erred. Upon the supposition that Sally Pitts had an interest in the land as claimed, the plaintiff had no right to cloud her title by a sale under an -order of the Court. And his Honor ought to have had an inquiry as to her title, and if found for her to have allotted 'her share, or else provided that a share of the proceeds of ■■sale equal to her interest in the land should be paid over ¡to her by the plaintiff. Her rights might have been passed ■upon by submitting an issue to a jury.
There is error. This will be certified, that further proceedings may be had in conformity with this opinion.
Per Curiam. Order accordingly.