CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND, 251

whereby there appeared to be a balance over and above the pay-
ment of debts of $1.3,357.44. But by the account so referred to and
exhibited with the petition, headed as "the first account" of this
executrix, passed on the 22d of January, 1823, the concluding al-
lowance in which is in these words: "Retained by this accountant,
being the residue of the deceased's estate, according to the last
will and testament of the deceased, $13,357.44." Whereupon it
was prayed, that the defendant, Eleanor Dawson, might be ordered
to bring that sum into Court to await the final decree.

On the 27th of February, 1826, it was ordered that she bring in
that sum of money as prayed, on the 3d of April then next, or
shew cause; provided a copy be served, &c.

On the 13th of July, 1826, Eleanor Dawson filed her answer,
without oath, to this petition, shewing for cause, that the
* plaintiffs have no interest in the money called for; that 266
the trustees, of whom her testator was the survivor, were only to
be held answerable for gross negligence; and that he had trans-
ferred the fund from England to this country and invested it here
as stated in her answer to the bill; in doing which he had the
assent of those interested, aad was guilty of no neglect or default;
that she had not assets sufficient to pay the debts of her testator,
and protesting against the right of the plaintiffs to travel out of
the admissions in her answer to their bill; she referred to her peti-
tion to the Orphans' Court, and to an order passed on the 10th of
July, 1825, allowing her account to be opened for correction, and
for rendering a further account, under which authority she had
accordingly passed a second account on the 28th of December fol-
lowing, in which she charged herself with some additional receipts
and the sum of $13,357.44 retained, as mentioned in her first ac-
count, and then obtained an allowance for cash, as per account
proved and passed, to the amount of $17,777.78, aud several other
smaller items; and that she was only bound to pay away the assets
of her testator as they came to her hands in the due course of ad-
ministration.

By agreement, the hearing of the matter of this petition of the
plaintiffs had been postponed to the 13th of July, but was not-
brought before the Court until sometime after.

BLAND, C., 6th September, 1826.—The petition of the plaintiffs
standing ready for hearing, the solicitors of the parties were fully
heard and the proceedings read and considered.

Having lately had occasion maturely to consider the nature of
an application to order money to be brought into Court before the
final hearing, McKim v. Thompson, 1 Bland, 155, it will be here
unnecessary to give any further explanations in regard to it, The
counsel for the petitioners seemed to think that the Court had, in
that case, gone, further with the doctrine than had been done in