508 MULLIK1N v. MULLIKIN.—1 BLAND.

ordered, that the said Basil D. Mullskin be and he is hereby dis-
placed, and Thomas S. Alexander is hereby appointed trustee in
his stead with the same authority and subject to the same respon-
sibility; provided that before he acts as such he shall give bond
in the penalty of twenty thousand dollars as required by the said
decree.

The trustee Alexander gave bond as required; on the 20th of
March, 1828, Basil D. Mullikin filed a full answer; on the 24th of
September, following the case, by order, was referred to the audi-
tor; and on the 20th of December Baruch Mullikin filed his answer
in obedience to this last order.

On the 5th of May, 1828, the trustee Alexander filed a represen-
tation, stating, that the land reported to have been sold to Benja-
min H. Mullikin was in fact purchased by him for the use of
Nicholas Woodward, who had intermarried with the heiress Mar-
garet, who had died after the confirmation of the auditor's report,
by reason whereof the right to demand and receive her share had
survived to her husband Nicholas; that a considerable amount of
the purchase money was yet unpaid, which Nicholas admitted.
No cause was shewn by Benjamin H. Mullikin.

And on the same 5th of May this trustee filed another represen-
tation, stating, that much of the proceeds of sale had been misap-
plied by the former trustee Basil D. Mullikiu and was likely to be
lost by his misconduct, and also by the misconduct of some of the
other heirs, who were his sureties, or who were purchasers or the
sureties of purchasers.

BLAND, C., 7th May, 1828.—The representations of the trustee,
Thomas S. Alexander, having been submitted, the proceedings
were read and considered.

* It appears, that much of the purchase money for which
541 the real estate was sold is likely to be lost, by reason of the
misconduct or negligence of some of those to whom proportions of
it have been directed to be paid by the order of the 15th of Feb-
ruary, 1825. That order was certainly founded upon the presump-
tion that no part of the purchase money had been or would be
lost by the misconduct of any of the persons among whom it was
to be distributed. It is very clear, that no one of these distri-
butees can be allowed to receive any portion of the share awarded
to him until al! sums, that ought to have been paid by him, and
for which he is in any way liable, have been satisfied. And I hold
it to be no less clear, that every assignee of a distributee must
take subject to all equities to which such distributee was in any
manner liable.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the order of the loth of February,
1825, in so far as it directs the payment of any money unto Basil