234 ELLIOOTT v. WELCH.—2 BLAND.

providently rendered, the personal estate of the deceased being

then wholly insufficient to satisfy the claims against it; and that

the petitioner Welch believed, that they would bind only a pro-

portion *of assets in his hands; and under that impression,

249 he had made a distribution of them accordingly: that those
judgments should be revised and reformed; or, at least, that divi-
dends of the real estate should be paid equal in amount to the per-
sonal estate paid after their rendition in discharge of other claims.
And further, the petitioner Wartield alleged, that he himself was
a creditor of his intestate to a large amount. Whereupon it was
prayed, that the surplus might be applied in payment of all just
claims against the estate of the late Nicholas Welch.

BLAND, C., 9th November, 1829.—The case on this petition
having been submitted without argument, the proceedings were
read and considered.

These petitioners Gaither and Warfield, presented their claim
by a petition filed on the 25th of August last, which was disposed
of by the order of the 20th of the same month; and feeling still
satisfied with the correctness of that order, it will be only neces-
sary now to say why I deem the new matter with which the claim
is by this petition connected, must be deemed altogether unavail-
able.

The petitioner Warfield states, that the judgments were reu-
dered improvidently and from ignorance, on his part, of their le-
gal effect and operation. If ignorance of law, to this extent, were
to be considered as a sufficient foundation for a Court of equity to
interfere, there are few judgments of any Court of common law.
which a Court of Chancery might not be called upon to revise and
reform. But this Court can, in no case, revise or reform a judg-
ment of a Court of common law in any respect whatever; and
there are no such special circumstances of fraud, surprise, or mis-
take set forth in this petition, as can give this Court jurisdiction
to grant relief against those who, as heirs, creditors or parties
may have a right to avail themselves of the effect and operation
of the absolute judgments obtained against the petitioner Warfield,
as the administrator of the late Nicholas Welch. Robinson v.
Bell, 2 Vern. 146. And, therefore, upon this ground, and for the
reasons given in the order of the 26th of August last, this claim
must be again rejected.

But the petitioner Warfield states, that he himself is a creditor
of his intestate. If so, it is perfectly well settled, that he might
have, at once, retained and applied of the assets, which came to
his hands, so much as was sufficient to satisfy his own claim; 1798.
ch. 101, sub-ch. 8, s. 19, and having this well known legal right, it
must be presumed, that * he had so retained to that amount:

250 because, the absolute judgments against him were a tacit