GIBSON'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 129

This matter arose on a bill filed, on the 7th of November, 1821,
by the Farmers Bank of Maryland, against John J. Gibson and
others, the representatives and trustees of the late John Gibsou,
for the sale of a real estate, Avhich he had mortgaged to the bank
to secure the payment of 15,325.20, with interest, upon which a
decree was passed, on the 12th of February, 1822, appointing
Addison Ridout to make the sale, who reported, that he had made
a sale of it, for one-third cash, and the residue in three annual
payments, which sale was, on the 3d of November, 1825, finally
ratified, allowing the trustee for commission and all expenses,
$309.50. The auditor thereupon stated an account, distributing
the proceeds of sale, in which the amount allowed to the trustee
was appropriated to him, which account as reported by the auditor
was ratified on the fifth day of the same month. Some time after
* which the trustee, Ridout, died, before he had collected the
whole amount of the purchase money; and, on the 14th of
December, 1826, Louis Gassaway was appointed as his successor
to complete the trust; and he now asks for an allowance of com-
missions on the sum of $4,779.70, the balance of the purchase
money collected by him.

BLAND, C., loth February, 1827.—It has been the practice of
this Court, for a long time, in a great variety of cases; but, par-
ticularly in creditor's suits, to have its decrees and orders carried
into effect by a kind of occasional executive agents, called trus-
tees; who perform offices, in many respects, entirely analogous to
those of the regular executive officers of the Courts of common
law; and similar to those which, in the English Court of Chancery,
are performed by the regularly constituted officers of that Court,
called masters in Chancery. The trustees of this Court hold a place
under it, and discharge their duties in a manner entirely unknown
to the English Chancery system. The principles by which they
have been governed have grown out of the nature of the cases in
which they have been employed; and, although often modified, as
propriety and convenience seem to suggest, they cannot yet be
regarded as being well settled, and as generally understood as the
nature of the subject requires.

Trustees appointed and employed by this Court have always
been considered as its ministerial officers; and, in whatever way
they may have originated, the power to employ such agents hav-
ing been recognized and affirmed by several legislative enactments,
it may be now considered as finally and firmly established. 1785,
ch. 72, s. 7; April, 1787, ch. 30, s. 5. (d)

{d} PUE v. DORSEY.—This bill was filed on the 9th of June, 1784, by Michael
Pue, William Good win and Milcah. Ms wife, and Eleanor Dorsey, surviving
executors of Caleb Dorsey, against Edward Dorsey, son of Samuel. The bill

9 1B.