442 DORSEY v. HAMMOND.—1 BLAND.

fees have rarely altogether exceeded one hundred dollars in any
one case.

Under a creditors' bill it is a rule, that all costs, including the
expenses of the sale; the survey, if any be ordered, or required,
either to lay off the land into lots, as in this instance, or to ascer-
tain the quantity sold, where the estate has been sold by the acre;
and all taxes, are to be first paid from the proceeds of sale; and
the balance only ratably distributed among the creditors, who are,
in that way, made to contribute in due proportion to defray the
expense of the suit. Hare v. Rose, 2 Vex. 558; Shoriley v. Selby,
5 Mad. 447; Bluett v. Jessop, Jac. Rep. 243. Yet, according to the
course of the Court, any other creditors may be allowed to come
in, at any time, before a final account has been stated and ratified,
and before the Court has actually paited with the fund; but if, in
order to give them a dividend, after the auditor has made his re-
port, it is necessary to re-state the account; as it is made for their
benefit exclusively, the costs of the re-statement are deducted
from the dividends allotted to them as the terms upon which alone
they can be allowed to come in and participate. 2 Foir. Ex.
Pro,. 279, 254; Angell v. Maddon, 1 Mad. Rep. 528. But this rule
applies only where the proceeds of sale are insufficient to pay all,
as in this instance; for if there be a surplus, there can be no rea-
son why it should not be applied, as against the heirs or devisees,
in full satisfaction of the principal, interest and costs of a just
debt, to which they can make no well grounded objection. Brom-
ley v. Goodere, 1 Atk. 75; Butcher v. Churchill, 14 Ves. 573; Ex
parte Mills, 2 Ves. Jun. 295; Exparte Hankey, 3 Bro. C. C. 504; Ex
parte Decy, 2 Ball & B. 77; Tyson v. Holliwgsworth, MS. 12th July,
1808. (d)

(d) Low v. CONNER.—This was a creditors' petition, filed 23d February,
1790, praying, that the lands of James Conner might be sold to pay his
debts, for which his personal estate was insufficient. 1st September, 1791,
decree for a sale in the usual form. Sale made and reported. 4th March,
1792, ordered, that the return of Joshua Townshend, trustee for the sale of
the real estate of James Conner, this day made be approved; and that his
proceedings and the sale by him made be approved, ratified and confirmed,
unless cause to the contrary be shewn on or before the fourth day of May
next. 10th December, 1792; no cause having been shewn the sale was abso-
lutely ratified.

HANSON, C., 11th December, 1793.—Each of the creditors of James Conner
deceased, mentioned in the report of the auditor, is entitled, not only to the
sum set down opposite to his name out of the principal money due, or paid
by the purchasers of Conner's real estate, but likewise to his just propor-
tion, or dividend of the interest paid, or to be paid on the sum of £113 19s.
lid. which appears, from the said report, to be the net product of the sale.

The decree directs the money arising from the sale to be brought into
Court. But if the trustee shall pay to each of the creditors aforesaid, that