MACKUBIN v. BROWN.—1 BLAND. 385

On the 5th of July, 1826, Eli Marriott and Cornelius Shipley
and Sarah his wife, filed their petition in this case, in which, after
setting out those circumstances, they state, that Eli and Sarah are
the children of Mary Marriott, the sister of the late William Ham-
mond, and, as such, legatees under his will; that the shares to
which they were entitled, were adjusted and awarded to them in
that case; that Basil Brown, who as trustee made sale of the late
William Hammond's estate, received the purchase money, but had
* not, during his life, nor had his administrators, since his
death, paid to them their legacies so bequeathed and 412
assigned to them: and that these petitioners, Eli and Sarah, hav-
ing been infants and but recently attained their full age, were
therefore prevented from making an earlier application. Where-
upon they prayed, that the present trustee might be ordered to
make report ol his proceedings; that they might be admitted to
come in as creditors under the decree: that the proceeds of the
sales already made, might be applied to the payment of their
claims ratably with other claims; that the trustee might be ordered
to make sale of so much more of the real estate as would be suffi-
cient to satisfy the claims against the late Basil Brown; and that
they might have such other relief as the nature of their case re-
quired, &c,

BLAND, C., 6th July. 1826.—Ordered, that the petitioners be,
and they are hereby permitted to come in as plaintiff's and credi-
tors in this case, as prayed; subject to all legal objections that
may be made against their claims. And it is further ordered, that
Rezin Hammond, the trustee, be, and he is hereby directed and
required to make report to this Court of the proceedings had under
the said decree lor the sale of the real estate of the late Basil
Brown. And it is further ordered, that the said trustee proceed
to make sale of so much more of the said real estate as, in addi-
tion to the sales* heretofore made, will be suifficient to discharge
all the claims that have been exhibited against the said estate.

On the 9th of August, 1820, Samuel Vacant and Mary Ann his
wife, filed their petition, alleging that she was another of the
children of Mary Marriott, and as such a legatee under the will of
the late William Hammond. In other respects the matter, state-
ments, and prayer of this petition were similar to that of Marriott
and Shipley. On the 25th of January, 1827, Marriott and Shipley
filed another petition, alleging that the trustee had made a report
of the proceedings under the decree, but had taken no steps for a
sale; and praying that he might be ordered to proceed to sell with-
out delay; and, in respect to the great lapse of time, that the sale
might be for cash; which was on the next day ordered accordingly.
On the 6th of March following, they filed a third petition, in which
25 1B