BURGH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND. 105

they remained as a part of the surplus of his personalty to be dis-
tributed among his next of kin; that those negroes, with their in-
crease, had been taken out of the possession of the late adminis-
tratrix, Jane Burch, by Kinsey Gittings, and held by him during
his life, and after his death had passed into the possession of
William Scott, "who claimed to hold them in virtue of letters of
administration granted to him upon the estate of Kinsey Gittings,"
and he had actually sold them in October. 1818. and received pay-
ment for them, amounting, as appears by his return of the sales,
to $2,850; "which, with interest and a reasonable compensation
for their services while in his possession, and in the possession of
Gittings, the plaintiffs were justly entitled to demand of this de-
fendant; that the defendant was about to distribute the money so
received by him as a part of the assets of his intestate Gittings."

Upon these circumstances this suit was instituted by Thomas
Burch, as administrator de bonis non of the late Jesse Burch, and
in his own right, together with Jesse Burch, Fielder Burch, Mildred
with her husband James Johnson, and Kitty with her husband
John Stephens; which Thomas, Jesse, Fielder, Mildred, and Kitty,
are the children, and next of kin of the late Jesse and Jane Burch,
against William Scott alone. The plaintiffs prayed to have the
defendant, Scott, considered as a trustee for their benefit; that a
distribution of the negroes, or the proceeds of the sale, might be
made among them; and that the defendant might be restrained by
injunction * from parting with, or paying over the proceeds
of the sale of those negroes. 114

An injunction bond was filed; but, from its not having been, as
usual, noted as approved by the Chancellor, it would seem to have
been deemed unnecessary in this case. An injunction was granted,
issued, and served. A subpoena was issued returnable to Septem-
ber Term, 1823, and returned served. The defendant not appear-
ing, an attachment was issued returnable to December Term. 1823,
and returned attached; and it was then renewed and returned at-
tached to March Term, 1824, when the following order was passed:

JOHNSON, C.,(f) 30th March, 1824.—In this cause the defendant
being returned attached for not appearing to the bill of complaint
filed by the complainants; and the said defendant not having ap-
peared, upon motion of the complainants by their solicitor; it is
this 30th day of March, 1824, ordered, that the said defendant,
either in person or by his solicitor, put in a good and sufficient
answer to each interrogatory contained in the bill, or a plea or

(/) The terms and form of this order were adjusted, by Chancellor HAN-
SON, according to the provisions of the Act of 1799, ch. 79, s. 2; in the case
of Walsh and others v. Delassere and others, 19th February. 1800, and it has
been followed ever since.