350 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND.

seen or heard of the advertisements, or of the suit; and, therefore,
it would be the height of injustice, that the proceedings of the
Court, wisely adopted with a view to general convenience, should
have the effect of conclusively applying the fund unequally and
wrongfully; or of transferring the property of the true owner to
one who had no right to it. And, therefore, the Court will, at any
time before it has actually parted with the fund, upon the applica-
tion of a claimant, let him in, and send the case again to the audi-
tor, to have the distribution recast at his expense: except, indeed,
a,s to small claims, which can be satisfied out of the accruing inte-
rest of the purchase money of the real estate which had been sold,
without incurring the expense of a re-statement. Gifford v. Horf,
1 Scho. & Lefr. 409; Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602; Angell v. Haddon, 1
Mad. Rep. 529; David v. Frowd, 1 Cond. Chn. Rep. S.(u)

If, however, a part only of the fund remains in Court, such
part will be charged with no more than its due proportion, leaving
the * claimant to seek satisfaction for the residue from the
365 next of kin, degatees, heirs or devisees to whom the other
shares of the fund had been actually paid. But after the Court
has actually parted with the whole fund, upon a bill tiled by a credi-
tor, next of kin, heir, or devisee against those alleged representa-
tives, of the deceased, among whom the property had been dis-
tributed, the Court will, upon proof of no wilful default on the
part of such creditor, next of kin, heir or devisee; nor any want of
reasonable diligence, compel the next of kin or distributees to pay
or restore to such plaintiff that to which he may appear' to be justly
entitled. Herey v. Dinwoody, 4 Bro. C. C. 268; Good v. Blewitt, If
Ves. 337; Gillespie v. Alexander, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 330; Greig v.
Sumerville, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 457; .David v. Frowd, 7 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 8; Mitf. Plea,. 160; 2 Fow. Exch. I'm. 253, 279; Strike's Case,
1 Bland, 86; Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland, 441; Dorsey v. Ham-
mond. 1 Bland, 468. But if the whole estate has been distributed

(w) FBAZEE HONYWOOD, by bis will, gave £20,000, upon trust, to be dis-
tributed among such of his relations by consanguinity, who should not each
be worth more than .£2,000; and who should, within two years after his
death, apply to participate in the donation. And, that they might be ap-
prised of it. directed that notice should be given by advertisement in the
London Gazette, and such other newspapers as his executors should think
proper, once a month, for two years after his death. The testator died on
the 4th of January, 1764: and the executors having advertised, as directed,
applications were made within the two years by four hundred and fifty-six
persons who resided in different parts of the world, to wit: England, Scot-
land, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Antigua, Jamaica, and South Carolina. After
which, the case was heard, and a distribution made accordingly. Bennett v.
Honywood, Amb. 708. There have been several creditors' suits in this Court,
within the last ten years, in which, on a notice of only four months, more
than one hundred and fifty creditors have come in under the decree. Sim-
mons v. Tongue, post.