WELCH 17. STEWART.—2 BLAND. 35

well as himself, I would not be understood as going so far as to
determine, that it should have the effect of depriving him. of any
other mode of relief to which he may have recourse. Such omitted
claim may be founded on a judgment, as in this instance of claim
No. 3, or upon a mortgage, in which case, I am not now prepared
to say, that its not having been demanded in the bill would
have the effect of depriving the claimant of his general or specific
lien.

*Whereupon, it is ordered, that the exceptions to the
claims Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are hereby overruled; but, that in so "
far as the said exceptions are directed against claim 'No. 3, exclu-
sively, they are sustained, and that claim is hereby rejected; but
without prejudice. And the auditor, in making a distribution of
the trust fund, and of the surplus of that fund, together with the
proceeds of the deceased's estate, will be governed by the princi-
ples herein before laid down and explained.

After which, some other claims were brought in, among which
was one filed on the 11th of June, 1829, by Joseph N. Stockett,
administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed of John Stockett,
deceased, for the sum of $300, admitted to be due by the deed of
trust, with interest from the 12th of June, 1812. To the allowance
of which, the plaintiff Welch objected, that it was not proved in
the manner required by law, and the practice of the Court; and
he also plead the Act of Limitations as a bar; and relied on the
lapse of time as evidence of payment.

BLAND, C., 10th August, 1829.—This case having been again
brought before the Court to obtain an order for a final audit; and
the. solicitors of the parties having submitted the matter, so far as
they were concerned, on notes, the proceedings were read and con-
sidered.

The order of the 16th of March last, having made only a partial
adjustment of this case preparatory to a final audit, it remains, in
connection with that order, to dispose of the residue of the now
controverted or neglected claims, which have been heretofore in-
troduced into the case.

The claim of Joseph N. Stockett, as administrator, de bonis non
of John Stockett, deceased, stated in the auditor's report filed on
the 4th of February last, as claim No. 7, has been admitted, pro-
vided for, and secured by the deed of trust mentioned in the bill;
and therefore, must now be permitted to take the grade and stand
of preference, allowed to all the other claims coming in under that
deed; unless it can be pushed from its position by one or other
of the points pressed against it. It is alleged to have been paid.
There is, however, no proof of any payment, and, therefore, that
point must be thrown aside, as having entirely failed for the direct