210 CAMPBELL'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

tors; or be prevented from being taken and applied iu satisfaction

of his debts; yet in most cases, where a creditor of a lunatic

224 * applies to a Court of equity for relief, the estate of the

the Chancellor of the State and interested in the suit, to the Chief Judge of
the third judicial district, that John H. Brown, one of the defendants, who
is the eldest son of John Brown, deceased, therein mentioned, and would
have been his sole heir if the Act to Direct Descents had not taken place,
has appeared to the said bill and his appearance having been entered on the
docket—it is thereupon Ordered, that the plaintiff cause a copy of this order
to be inserted at least three weeks successively in the Maryland Gazette
before the twentieth day of July next, to the end that each of the heirs of
the said John Brown, who are defendants, may have notice of the said bill,
and of its substance and object, and may be warned to appear in the Chan-
cery Court on or before the thirtieth day of November next, in person or by
solicitor, to shew cause, if any they have, wherefore a decree should not pass
as prayed.

On the 10th of February. 1809, the plaintiff William Kilty, the then Chan-
cellor, in his notes addressed to the Chief Judge, says: "' The papers in this
case are sent to the Chief Judge of the third judicial district, on the suppo-
sition that they are ready for a decree. It was the practice of the late Chan-
cellor, on bills for the sale of real estates, to decree, without having the case
set down for hearing, whenever a sufficient ground appeared in the proceed-
ings. In this suit, a petition was filed in June, 1807, under the Act of 1797,
ch. 114: and an order thereon, which is certified to have been duly published.
The object of this bill is, that the suit may be carried on between the com-
plainant and the defendant who appeared, and that there should be the same
decree as if the heirs had appeared, and against them the bill may be either
taken pro confesso, or a commission may be directed. According to the
practice, as above mentioned, the office-copies of judgments have been con-
sidered sufficient, if not contested by the answer: and the whole of the
claims exhibited have not been required to be proved as stated before a
decree; but they have been laid before the auditor with further proof, to-
gether with any other claims. This much is intended to apply to that part
of the answer which states, that R. Johnson was not a mere surety, but was
equally indebted with John Brown. But there is sufficient evidence of the
other claim and of the personal estate being deficient.

J. T. CHASES, Chief Judge, 20th February, 1809.—The bill in this case,
which according to the Act of 1805, ch. 65, s. 19,; was addressed to the Chief
Judge of the third judicial district, being ready for decision, and the claims
of the suing creditor, and the insufficiency of the personal estate being suffi-
ciently established; and the publication having been duly made, after the
appearance of John H. Brown, who would have been the sole heir of John
Brown, deceased, if the Act to Direct Descents had not taken place, against
the other heirs,—

It is thereupon Decreed, that the bill as to the said other heirs be taken
pro confesso; and that the real estate of John Brown, deceased, not hereto-
fore sold, or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay such claims of the
creditors of the said John Brown which still remain unpaid, be sold: that T.
T. be and he is hereby appointed trustee to make the said sale, &c. &c.

Under this decree, a sale was made, reported and ratified; after which the
auditor on the 13th of July, 1809, among other things reported, that accounts