HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 319

which privilege had been, by our law, extended to all infants who
claimed by purchase in like manner as to those who claimed by

mission of the trustee, being also the counsel for the complainants, has ex-
amined the several accounts stated by the auditor, and considered the excep-
tions to them.

He is of opinion that the account with the trustee. No. 5, which was stated
by desire of the counsel for the defendants, is not conformable to the estab-
lished practice of the Court, and that justice does not require a departure
from that practice so as to confirm that statement. The Chancellor is further
of opinion, that the account with the trustees. No. 2. would be entirely con-
formable to the established principles and practice, if' the amount of the
claims and commissions had not exceeded the amount of the sales. The
reasons for the practice are obvious. The bonds taken on the sale, being on
interest, that interest ought to be applied to the interest accruing on the ag-
gregate of the debts due at the time of sale; because, if the sale was for
ready money, it could, at once, be applied to discharge those debts; and the
estate, by this practice, pays no more interest than it receives. But, in ac-
count No. 2, the interest charged, as per account No. 3. is $6.770.47; and the
interest computed, as due from the purchase, to the same day, is only
$6,256.87: making a loss or difference of $513.60. All difficulty would have
been avoided if the claims had been previously ascertained, or if the amount
of the sales made had been sufficient to meet or exceed them, together with
the costs and commissions. As the business stands, the Chancellor is of
opinion that the deficiency to be provided for by a further sale; or. in the
first place, by the sum due from James Carey, as executor, of McKenna, is
to be ascertained by stating an account or accounts, on the principle of the
one which is prefixed to this order, which deficiency will be $3,357.40: The
claimants and the trustee being considered, at present, as entitled to in-
terest in proportion to that which is due from the purchasers. The above de-
ficiency will be taken as principal, to bear interest from the time of the pay-
ments made from the first sale, if a second sale should be necessary. But if
the purchasers should succeed in getting a deduction of the interest, a differ-
ent order must be made; and therefore it does not appear necessary that the
accounts should be stated at this time, unless requested by either party.
The costs of the suit are to be taken out of the next sale, or the sum in the
hands of James Carey.

After which, by consent, much additional testimony was taken, returned
and filed: upon all which the case was again brought before the Court, and
the petition, filed on the 29th of January. 1808. was again particularly pre-
sented for consideration.

KILTY, C., 12th July, 1808.—It is now represented that there will be a
sufficiency from the payment made by James Carey, as executor of McKenna,
to satisfy all the creditors; and it is stated, as an amendment to this petition
of the purchasers, that Hollingsworth and wife are solely interested; and
they are prayed to be made parties thereto. The trustee does not appear to
consider himself bound, as such, to take any measures as to this petition;
but has agreed in support of it as counsel for the petitioners. No answer
has been put in by Jesse Hollingsworth and wife; but the petition has been
approved by counsel on their behalf; and there is an agreement as to the tes-
timony to be read on the hearing. At the present term the said petition was
argued, and has since, together with the testimony taken, and the proceed-