McKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND. 157

of January in the year eighteen hundred and twelve, which sum,
it appears by the admitted and incontrovertible facts in this case,
he had received from the said Marcus Heyland previous to the
fourteenth day of September, in the year eighteen hundred and
eleven, for the use of said Heyland's creditors, as specified in
the proceedings in this case; and which the said Hugh Thomp-
son ought, within a reasonable time thereafter, to have paid to
the said creditors: Provided a copy of this order be served on the
said Thompson, on or before the twenty-fifth day of the present
month. And it is further ordered, that the said sum of money,
with the interest thereon, when so brought into Court, be deposited
in the Farmers Bank of Maryland to the credit of this case, sub-
ject to further order.

The defendant Thompson, having been advised, that he was not
entitled to an appeal from this order, without any previous appli-
cation to the Chancellor to be allowed to appeal, on the 17th of
February, 1825, presented a petition to the Senate, praying that
the General Assembly of Maryland would pass a special Act allow-
ing him the benefit of an appeal; and the plaintiffs on the next
day presented a counter petition to the Senate, which were both
together referred to a committee, who on the 23d of February,
1825, made the following report:

" The committee to whom was referred the petition of Hugh
Thompson, and the counter petition of John McKim, Jun'r, Thomas
L. Emory, and others, report—That they have considered the
* subject referred to them with the attention which the large 168
pecuniary amount, and the importance of the principles involved
in its considerations demand. The petitioner has been proceeded
against in Chancery by the counter petitioners and others, as a
trustee, holding funds which, by the principles of equity, as it is
said, he is bound to distribute to sundry creditors of a certain
Marcus Heyland. The defendant denies the trust alleged, and
claims the amount in his hands as due to himself. The Chancellor,
by an interlocutory order, has decided, that certain papers filed
as exhibits in the cause, prove the trust to exist as alleged, and
has directed the fund, amounting to about 870,000, to be brought
into Court. The petitioner alleges, that the interlocutory order is
wholly a manifest violation of the principles of Chancery law, in
ordering money to be deposited into Court by a defendant, claiming
title to it, and more especially in adopting such an order as a means
of coercion, by which to compel a defendant to a final decision of
his cause, without the proof which his counsel may think proper
and necessary; but is also injurious to him in the highest degree,
without any corresponding benefit to the adverse party whose, inte-
rest, it is said, will be promoted by allowing the defendant to give
such security as will ensure the prompt payment of the money,