HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 321

the benefit of a bond creditor of his ward's ancestor, be compelled
in equity to account for the rents and profits of the real estate de-
scended; Creed v. Colville, I Vern. 172; March v. Rennett, 1 Vern.
428; Waters v. Ebrall, 2 Vern, 606, Ward v. Cecil, 2 Vern. 712; Searth
v. Cotton, Cas. Tern. Tal. 198; probably, because those rents and pro-
fits were allowed to the heir as a support during his minority; and
as a means of preparing for his defence when Ise should attain his
full age; or, because, upon feudal principles they were to be other-
wise disposed of. Markal's Case, G Co. 4; Plasket v. Beeby,4 East,
485; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 P. Will. 368. And therefore, after lands
claim to which cannot, with any certainty, be said to arise from the situation
in which they were placed. The circumstance of the loss falling on Hol-
lingsworth and wife, and not on the creditors, does not appear so material
as to outweigh the objections which have been stated. And their conduct,
in instituting the suit, not having been accompanied with any actual dis-
turbance of the possession, could not, with justice, make them liable to so
considerable a loss. The loss or injury to the purchasers was, in some de-
gree, occasioned by their own fears, which, the event has proved, were not
well founded; and they ought not to have the benefit, as far as it is such, of
retaining their purchases without paying interest on the sum contracted to
be paid. It is to be observed, also, that they might have paid, or offered to
pay, the money into Court; and that, notwithstanding the evidence respect-
ing the readiness of the purchasers to make payment, it is not shewn that
they kept the money dead by them; and it is presumed that the use of
money is generally, if not always, worth the interest of it.

It is, therefore, adjudged and ordered, that the said petition be dismissed,
but without costs.

On the next day the case was again brought before the Court for further
directions.

KILTY, C., 13th July, 1808.—The said petition being decided on, the audi-
tor is directed to proceed instating the accounts. The order of the 8th of
March last was predicated on the ground of a further sale being necessary
for the payment of the claims; but it being represented that the sum paid
in, on account of the personal estate, will be sufficient to satisfy the credi-
tors, in addition to the sale already made, that circumstance may. possibly,
make some difference; and the auditor is, therefore, not restricted to the
form or to the principles laid down in the order of the 8th March, in stating
the accounts; except that the account No. 5, which was stated by desire of
the counsel for the defendants, is to be rejected. The auditor will state the
claims excepted to by Mr. Hollirigsworth, in the same manner as if passed,
for the present; because there will be a sufficiency to pay all the other credi-
tors; and those claims can be hereafter decided on. The auditor will take
into the account the money paid in by James Carey, as executor of McKenna,
observing that the interest on so much of the claims must cease at the time
of that sum being paid in, which will appear in the proceedings. The ac-
counts, when stated to be reported to the Court, for further orders.

The auditor reported accordingly. Some matters appear to have been ad-
justed by compromise, and the case seems to have soon after terminated.
Chancery Proceedings, 1803, fol. 699 to 877; S. C. 1 H. & J. 409.
21 2B.