WILLIAMSON r. WILSON.—1 BLAND. 397

The Statute of Limitations, or any other just opposition, may be relied on or
made against a claim brought in under the decree by any one of the
original parties, or by a co-creditor.

After a reasonable time a final account may be ordered, rejecting all claims
not then sufficiently authenticated.

By this bill, filed on the 3d of April, 1826, it is stated, that the
plaintiff' Charles A. Williamson, and the defendants John B. Wil-
son and John N. Woodard, had formed a partnership, as commis-
sion merchants and auctioneers in the City of Baltimore, on the
7th of April, 1824, for the term of three years from that date, by
the name of Wilson. Williamson & Co.: that they gave bond, with
David Williamson their surety, to the city as auctioneers; that
the business of the partnership was carried on accordingly until
the 4th of January, 1826, when the firm became insolvent and
stopped payment; that the defendants have since held, and re-
tained in their possession, exclusively, all the goods, effects, books,
papers, and vouchers of the firm; and are collecting the debts due,
and wasting and misapplying the property of the partnership, to
the ruin of the plaintiff, and to the prejudice of the creditors ol
the firm. Upon which the plaintiff prayed for an injunction to
restrain the defendants from collecting the debts; and that a re-
ceiver might be appointed to collect them and to take charge ot.
and preserve the goods, debts and effects of the firm for the bene-
fit of all concerned. The bill was sworn to by the plaintiff in the
usual form.

On the same day the bill was filed, it was submitted to the
Chancellor, upon which it was ordered, that David Williamson.
jun'r, be appointed receiver; and, that an injunction be granted
as prayed. But leave was granted to the defendants to move for
rescinding the order, and the dissolution of the injunction either
before or after filing their answer on giving five days notice of
such motion: and the register was directed to annex a copy of the
order to the writ of injunction.

On the 12th of the same month the defendants, having filed
their answers, gave notice to the plaintiff, that they should, on
the 14th instant, move, as allowed by the order of the 3d instant.
All the material admissions and allegations of the answer are
sufficiently set forth by the Chancellor in his view of the case.
*On the same day, and together with the answer of the
defendants, I. & J. Pogue and others, as creditors of the 420
firm, filed their petition objecting toD. Williamson, junior, being
considered as a receiver; and recommending Jacob Schley to be
appointed in his stead for the benefit of the creditors of the part-
nership. And, on the next day, the plaintiff' filed exceptions to
the answer of the defendants; and David Williamson, as another