228 ELLICOTT v. WELCH,— 2 BLAND.

was, on the loth of June, 1830, approved; and on the 5th of May,
1832, he reported, that he had made some further sales, which were
finally ratified, on the 6th of July, 1832. On the 7th of May, 1832,
the auditor reported a statement of the claims of the creditors of
the deceased, who had come in, and a distribution among them of
so much of the testator's estate as had then, in various ways, come
to the hands of the trustee. After which the trustee reported, that
he had raised some further sums by mortgage, which, without
opposition, was, on the 26th of May, 1835, approved. It appears
by the proceedings under a petition tiled in the same case on the
2nd of March, 1836, that all the children of the testator William
Campbell were then dead: and that the case had so abated.

ELLICOTT v. WELCH.

CREDITORS' SUIT.—VENDOR'S LIEN.—DOWER.—JUDGMENTS AGAINST ADMINIS-
TRATOR AND AGAINST HEIR.

A bill filed by the holder of a vendor's lien, who has no interest in common

with the creditors at large, cannot be treated as a creditor's suit; except

on the petition of a general creditor for satisfaction out of the surplus, (a)

The widow of the vendee can be endowed, under the Act of Assembly, only

of that which remains after the vendor's lien has been satisfied. (b)
An absolute judgment against an administrator is conclusive evidence of the
243 sufficiency of assets to pay that debt; and * also a debt due to such
administrator, for which he might retain : which conclusive evi-
dence must necessarily enure to the benefit of the heirs and devisees:
who, if made to pay, have a right, by substitution, to proceed on such
judgment to obtain reimbursement, (c)

The Court of Chancery cannot revise or reform a judgment of a Court of
common law in any way whatever.

THIS bill was tiled on the 7th of November, 1825, by George
Ellicott against Joshua Warfield and Rachel Welch the adminis-
ters, and Derastus Welch, John Welch, Nicholas Welch, Rachel
Welch, and Howard Welch, the infant heirs of the late Nicholas
Welch, and Warner Welch, with whom the administratrix Rachel
had intermarried. The bill states, that the plaintiff sold a parcel
of land to John Welch; which according to the agreement entered
into "between them, was, when fully paid for, to be legally con
veyed to him; that soon after entering into this agreement, John
Welch assigned his interest in the land to Nicholas Welch, who
took possession of it, and paid a part of the purchase money; that

(a) Cited in Thomas v. Farmers Bank, 46 Md. 56. See Hammond v. Ham-
mond, post, 306.

(b) Approved in Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 382.

(c) Eeversed in Gaither v. Welch, 3 G. & J. 259.