HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 351

and actually paid over to the creditors of the deceased, or in so far
as it had been so actually paid away, then, as such creditors can-
not be made to refund, claimants of, and under the deceased debtor,
who may thereafter come in, can take nothing by their application;
not upon the ground, that their claims are without foundation; but
because by their negligence they have lost all means of relief . Low-
thian v. Hasel, 4 Bro. C. C. 168; Hindman v. Clayton. ante, 337; 1708,
ch. 101, sub-ch. 8, s. 13.

A publication warning all claimants, unknown to the Court, to
come in and lile the vouchers of their claims against the estate, is
a constructive notice, upon which it is presumed to be safe to pro-
ceed to make a distribution of it among all those who then,
after such notice, shall have come in and made claim. That, how-
ever, cannot apply to a legatee, or any other claimant who then
fails to come in and assert his right, but whose title appears upon
the face of the proceeding; and who must, therefore, have a pro-
portional share of the fund set apart for his satisfaction.. Good v.
Blewitt. 19 Ves. 338; Waite v. Temple.1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 102; Anony-
mous, 4 .Excii. Rep. 72.

Should a claimant find it necessary, for any purpose advantageous
to himself, to introduce any matter, not apparent upon the face of
the voucher of his claim, he may be permitted to do so by petition;
or if the relief he seeks cannot be so obtained he may file a. cross-
bill. Latouche v. Dunsany, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 149; Strike's Cancel Eland,
85. But the most usual way for a creditor to come in is by merely
tiling the voucher of his claim with such an affidavit * an- 366
nexed as is required for authenticating such a claim in the
Orphans' Court. 1708, ch. 101, sub-ch. 0. The meaning of which
practice is, that a person should not come here, and claim a debt
without giving that assurance, that it is due, which arises from his
affidavit; which also, if the debt be contested, affords a protection
against the conclusion from other evidence, that it is due. when
the contrary may be within the knowledge of the party himself;
Fladong v. Winter, 19 Ves. 109; and moreover, because of its
being proper to follow the rule prescribed for the Orphans' Court,
under similar circumstances, in order that there may be a con
sistency in the administration of justice. But if the claim be con-
tested, as it may, by a plaintiff, a defendant, or any one who has
been allowed to come in, and whose interest may be affected by it,
no attention is to be given to the affidavit, the claim must be estab-
lished by full proof as on issue joined before a jury; or it will be
rejected. The admission of, or even a judgment against an exe-
entor or administrator can be of no avail against the heir or de-
visee. Putnam v. Bate*, 3 Cond. Clia. Rep. 355; Dorsey v. Hnm-
mond, 1 Bland, 470. And if all the original parties to the suit
should waive the Statute of Limitations, still it may be relied on
by any one who comes in, and may have an interest to protect by