HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 329

the then existing law, could have had, and were always under-
stood to have had no other object, that the privilege formerly

Edward Clayton, they did not thereby lose their lien on Edward Clayton's
land, but gained an additional security, and all Solomon's lands are liable.
As to the land coming from Edward Clayton, they are to be preferred to all
the creditors, except the present petitioners. As to Solomon's land, if any
there be, which did not come from Edward, they are on a footing with other
creditors. The petitioners having a claim against Edward's estate only, can
have no title to be paid out of that part of Solomon's land, if any there be,
which did not come from Edward.

The case was again brought before the Chancellor by the trustee for fur-
ther directions, and praying that his trust and the whole proceedings might
be brought to a close.

HANSON. C., 8th March, 1805.—No cause has ever been before the Chan-
cellor in which he has had so'much trouble in examining the proceedings,
and making statements and orders, and instructions in writing, in order
that the merits of the several claims might be brought fairly before him.
He has suffered great uneasiness on account of that delay which has taken
place, which may appear to be unaccountable, but which has been owing to
the negligence, inattention, or ignorance, or all combined of the parties
themselves. In the beginning all the claims exhibited were merely against
Solomon Clayton, as if the debts were originally due from him. Had that
been the case the proceeds of the sale would have been properly divided
amongst the claimants in due proportion, and a considerable part of each
claim would have been discharged. As matters then stood, the Chancellor
directed several payments to be made out of the money in the hands of the
trustee. But, before the dividend was actually struck, a claim was ex-
hibited on the part of Dr. Harris and Mrs. Airey for money due from the
estate of Edward, the father of Solomon Clayton. from whom the land
came to the said Solomon. Of this claim the Chancellor had never been ap-
prised. They claimed a preference to the proper creditors of Solomon Clay-
ton. But, inasmuch as money had been paid away, before they came into
Court, they professed themselves, by counsel, willing to take only the money
remaining in the hands of the trustee.

After this Messrs. Hemsley and Tilghman required also a preference, on
account of their claim having been founded on a debt originally due from
Edward, the father. It appeared likewise, that the debt to James Anderson,
was originally due from the said Edward. By far the greater part of the
delay in the case has arisen on the part of Dr. Harris, whose petition was
not accompanied with the necessary vouchers to establish all the points, on
which his claim against the estate and the title to preference were supposed
to be founded. In the course of several years, his papers have several times
been laid before the Chancellor and as often found defective; although the
Chancellor had stated his ideas, and even given full directions in writing.

The Chancellor must here refer to a statement and remarks made in writ-
ing on the 20th day of March, 1800; in which he states the practice and prin-
ciples of this Court, relative to joint debts, due from a person deceased,
whose land, in the hands of infant heirs or devisees, is sold under a-decree
of this Court. And he conceives, that agreeably to those principles, Dr.
Harris and Mrs. Airey ought not to be allowed more than one-third of their