CAMPBBLL'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 209

Although the property of a lunatic cannot, either by a Court of
common law or equity, be removed beyond the reach of his credi-

interest during the said war; and indeed the parties have never claimed it.
This is the only case in which the point has been made; and as it is a ques-
tion of law, which probably may come before the General Court in some
other case, he takes the liberty of requesting the honorable the Judges of
the said Court to favor him with their opinion on the subject.

On the 7th of October, 1803, the Chancellor again, by an order, asked the
opinion of the Judges of the General Court; but nothing further appears
to have been done in the matter. By the Act of 1806, ch. 55, s. 2, the Chan-
cellor may require the opinion of the Chief Judge of the third judicial
district on any question of law. &c.

BOUCHER v. BRADFORD.—This bill was filed on the 18th of February, 1789,
by John T. Boucher and others against Eleanor Bradford and others, the ad-
ministratrix and the infant heirs of Henry Bradford, deceased. It states,
that the deceased was indebted to the plaintiffs as therein specified: that his
personal estate was insufficient to pay his debts: and that he left real estate
which could not be made answerable for the satisfaction of the said claims
during the minority of the said infants, but by the aid of this Court, &c.
Prayer that the realty might be sold, &c. The defendants answered, after
which the case was brought before the Court.

HANSON, C., 20th June. 1793.—Decreed, that the real estate of the said
Henry Bradford, deceased, which hath descended from him. or by him been
devised to the defendants, his heirs, be sold for the payment of his just
debts: it appearing to the Chancellor, that his personal estate is insufficient
for that purpose; and several of the claims of the plaintiffs being established
to the Chancellor's satisfaction. &c., &c., the purchaser giving bond with
good security to the trustee as such. &c. &c.

KILTY v. BROWN.—This was a creditor's bill, filed on the 7th of January,
1807.—William Kilty, the then Chancellor, being the only plaintiff and
originally suing creditor, the bill was, according to the Act of 1805, ch. 65,
s. 19, addressed to the Chief Judge of the third judicial district. The bill
stated that John Brown, deceased, was indebted to the plaintiff on several
claims, one of which was on a note executed by the said John Brown,
with Rinaldo Johnson as his security, to Nathaniel Washington, for the sum
of sixty-seven pounds, current money, bearing date the fifteenth day of
December, seventeen hundred and ninety-eight; which note was assigned
by the said Nathaniel Washington to this plaintiff;" and that the personal
estate, of the deceased was insufficient to pay his debts—whereupon it was
prayed that the real estate might be sold, &c.

One of the heirs, a defendant, answered and said, that he admitted the
note, but believed ''that the said Johnson was not solely the security: but
that both him and the father of this defendant were both jointly indebted
in the sum for which the said note was given."

After which the plaintiff by his petition, without oath, prayed that he
might be permitted to proceed against the defendant who had appeared as
the heir at common law of the deceased, and by an order of publication
against his other heirs, under the Act of 1797, ch. 114.

J. T. CHASE. Chief Judge, 15th June, 1807.—The object of the bill in this
case is to compel the defendants, &c. &c. It is stated by the plaintiff, being
14 2B.