90 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

the other proceedings, to which it purports to be an answer, it
cannot be evidence in this cause, and must be rejected.

"With these explanations, determinations and directions, the case
is referred to the auditor to state an account accordingly; and the
several exceptions, as well of the plaintiffs as of the defendants,
to the auditor's statements and reports heretofore made, so far as
the same are inconsistent with the determinations and directions
herein before given, are overruled, and so far as they may agree
therewith, are sustained.

The complainants afterwards filed a petition stating, that they
originally em ployed as their counsel Henry M. Murray and Henry
W. Eogers, and agreed with them, in case of the successful termi-
nation of this case, by a final decree against Strike in this Court,
to pay them ten per cent, each, on the amount of the proceeds of
the suit, as a compensation for their services, subject to a deduc-
tion of whatever moneys should be paid to them in the mean time,
on the account of this suit; and that after the interlocutory decree
was obtained, Murray and Rogers applied to Baltimore Countj
Court to fix their per ceatage on the amount then received by the
sale under the decree, while this suit was pending there, which
*was allowed by that Court, under the impression, that
"~ those gentlemen were to proceed in the case to a final de-
cree; upon which condition alone, was the per centage to be allowed.
The petitioners further stated, that Henry M. Murray, soon after
that order was passed, died, without proceeding further in the
case, after the auditor's first report therein, and the petitioners
have, in place of Murray, been compelled to engage Charles Mitch-
ell as their counsel, who has attended to the same since; and the
petitioners had alone borne all the expenses of the suit. Where-
fore they prayed, that the same per centage, in proportion to his
services, might be allowed to Charles Mitchell, as was to be allowed
to Henry M. Murray, if he had lived, to be ascertained by this
Court subject to a like deduction therefrom, of the mone;y ad-
vanced by the complainants to him during the progress of this
suit, or that this Court would be pleased to prevent any further
burthen of the counsel fees in this case upon the petitioners, but
that the fund may contribute thereto, under the agreement afore-
said.

BLAND, C.,17th April, 1826.—The Chancellor has read and
considered the foregoing petition. No objection was intimated to
him, against the claim of Henry M. Murray, until after the argu-
ment, and the Chancellor was engaged in deliberating upon and
maturing those directions, with which this case has been lately
sent to the auditor. The Chancellor knows of no practice of this
Court, or of any analogous proceeding of the English Court, which