CAMPBELL'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 207

BLAND, C., 31st October, 1829.—The agreement under which
this case has been submitted, is conclusive upon all the adult par-
ties to the suit, except the defendant John McHenry, who is not
a party to it; but he, being in default for not answering, may on
the proceedings and proofs, he considered as having waived all
objections to the plaintiff's obtaining the relief asked by the bill.

In regard to the lunatic and the infant defendants, it is clear,
that their interests cannot be bound by any special agreement;
and, therefore, although a committee or guardian ad litem, of a
lunatic or infant may, in a regular course of proceeding, in some
cases, consent to a decree; Hammond v. Hammond, post; yet as
to them, in this instance, the Court must found its decree upon
other and better ground than that of a peculiar agreement by
which adult and sane, persons alone are competent to bind them-
selves.

According to the general course of the Court, all cases must be
regularly set down for hearing before either party is allowed to
call for a decree. But in creditors' suits the course is somewhat
different. In such cases, to prevent delay, and as so much is to bo
done after the funds have been brought into Court, and every
thing may be so easily set right, by further directions, it has long
been the established practice here, as well as in England, in all
such cases, where the whole, or a part of the plaintiff's claim, as
designated in the bill, has been distinctly established or admitted,
as specified; and it is shewn or confessed, that the personal estate
has been exhausted, or is insufficient, at once to pass a decree,
directing the real estate .to be sold, without waiting for the case
to be fully prepared for a final close, or to be regularly set down
for hearing.. Holme v, Stanley, 8 Ves. 1; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves.
65; Birch v. Glover, 4 Mad. 376. (i) And this being a creditor's suit,

(i) CHAMBERLAIN v. BROWN.—This was a creditor's bill, filed on the 34th of
June, 1794, to have the lands of Robert Brown, a deceased debtor, sold to
pay his debts, on the ground that his personal estate was insufficient for
that purpose. The heirs, who were all infants, answered by their guardian
(id litem, that their said father was indebted to a much greater amount than
the value of his personal estate, and which debts could only be satisfied by
the aid of the real estate, which, they had no objection to being applied under
the authority of this Court, to whose care and protection, as infants, they
begged leave to submit themselves. William Richmond, the administrator,
by his answer, admitted that Robert Brown, late of Queen Anne County,
died largely indebted to the complainants, on judgments obtained in the
life-time of the said Robert Brown, as in their said bill was alleged, &c.:
and that this defendant has not assets sufficient to pay the debts of the said
John Lloyd, as stated in the said bill.

HANSON, C., 30th April, 1797.—The Chancellor has perused these papers on
submission, and finds the case not ready. There is no claim established to