444 DORSEY v. HAMMOND.—1 BLAND.

reported. It is true, that the Court may be called upon, in the
first instance, to decide upon all or one of the claims, which have
been exhibited. This course is now, however, rarely or never
taken, unless when there is supposed to exist some very unusual
difficulty. When the case goes to the auditor, without any previ-
ous instructions from the Court, he admits into his account every
claim that has been filed and properly authenticated, with all
others which there is any plausible reason to believe may be, in
any way, sustained by proof and allowed. Field v. Holland, G
Cran. 20.

In making distribution of the proceeds of a deceased debtor's
real estate among his creditors, this Court is directed by an Act of
Assembly, 1785, ch. 80, s. 7, which in this respect is not at all
affected by the testamentary system, 1798, ch. 101, to pay away
the proceeds of the realty in the same order, that is to be observed
by an executor or administrator in making payments out of the
personalty.

It has always been the practice in this Court to require all claims
to be proved before they are allowed either for the whole or admitted
to a dividend, in the same manner as they would be required to be
authenticated in order to be passed by an Orphans' Court; and
therelore no claim, coming in under a creditors' bill, will be passed
or allowed, which could not, according to law, be passed and
allowed against the personal estate by an Orphans' Court. This
was the practice long before the passage of the general testament-
ary Act; 1798, ch. 101; and has continued to be so ever since.

It has also been always a settled rule of this Court, and is one
which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that a judgment
against an executor or administrator is of no avail against the
* heirs of the deceased debtor; not even so far as to prevent
471 the operation of the Statute of Limitations. Harwood v.
Rawlings, 4 H. & J. 12C; Duvall v. Green, 4 R. & J. 270; Mason
v. Peter, 1 Mun. 437. Therefore these judgments which have been
obtained against the executor, cannot relieve these creditors from
the necessity of producing the usual proofs of their claims. Their
original causes of action, as they stood before these judgments
were rendered, must be proved as against these heirs precisely as
if no such judgments had ever been obtained.

And generally in other respects all claims must appear upon the
face of them, prima facie, to be just and fair; and to have ob-
tained or had assured to them, at the instance of the creditor, pay-
ment from no other person or fund. Unless a claim is thus authen-
ticated, and upon the face of it clear, if will not be allowed, even
although no objection should be made to it by any one interested.
And consequently it has always been considered to be the duty of
the auditor to notice, in his report, all objections of this descrip-
tion. The auditor has no right certainly to moot cases to the