410 W1LLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND.

properly debts due from the firm. This report, at the instance of
the receiver, was revised by the auditor to rectify some mistakes
as to the amount stated to be in his hands; and to let in some al-
lowances to him for his expenses; and another statement was re-
ported by the auditor on the 22d February 1827.

The plaintiff by his petition alleged, that the evidence to sup-
port his exceptions to the claims of Charles Cappeau, Garrett
Brown, Charles and J. Walker, and Lot Ridgely, was within the
knowledge of those parties respectively. Wherefore he prayed,
that they might be ordered to answer those exceptions on oath.

BLAND, C., 30th March, 1827.—Ordered, that Charles Cappeau,
Garrett Brown, Charles and J. Walker, and Lot Ridgely
434 * make answer on oath or affirmation to the exceptions as
prayed by this petition, on or before the sixteenth day of May
next, or shew good cause to the contrary: Provided a copy of
this order and the petition and the exceptions therein referred to
be served on each of them on or before the tenth day of April
next.

On the 21st May following they filed their answer accord-
ingly.

Lot Ridgely and others creditors of the firm on the 6th of April
1827, filed exceptions to the allowance of several claims as stated
by the auditor; and at the same time by their petition prayed to
have leave to take testimony in relation to their exceptions.

BLAND, C., 7th April, 1827.—Upon this application it must be
recollected, that in a creditors' suit, as this is, each creditor has a
right to assume the position of a plaintiff, as against his debtor,
wherever may be the nominal station of such debtor in the
suit then depending before the Court; that each creditor,
having an interest in excluding the claims of all other creditors,
so far as the admission of their claims to a participation of the
funds would lessen the amount of satisfaction he would otherwise
obtain has a right to plead the Statute of Limitations, or make
any objection to the allowance of any claims which the debtor
himself could make under similar circumstances, and that each
one of the debtors, or their representatives, may make any de-
fence against a claim which he would be permitted to make if
he alone were charged as the only debtor. Hence it follows, that
in taking testimony in relation to such a contested claim, in order
that it may be impartially taken; the party requiring it must give
notice to the party directly to be affected by it, or to some one
who has an interest in cross-examining the witnesses, and having
their testimony fully and correctly reported to the Court. To give
notice to all the creditors would be impracticable; and to indulge