WELCH v. STEWART.—2 BLAND. 37

This, however, is to be understood of the proceedings of the
parties to the ease, and not of the acts of any of the officers of
the Court. The auditor has always been considered as the mere
ministerial officer of the Court, whose powers and duties extend
no farther than to prepare and put in order the materials upon
which the Chancellor is to adjudicate. Hence, no statement, report,
or act of the auditor can affect the rights or interests of a party,
plaintiff, or defendant, claimant, or opponent. Dorsey v. Ham-
mond, 1 Bland, 496 ; Fenwick v. Gibbs, 2 Desau. 635.

Upon this ground it has always been held, that the Statute of
Limitations may be presented as a defence, at any time after the
claim has been tiled or brought before the Court, either before the
case has gone to the auditor, or after he has made a report on it.
(d) But where, without specially relying on the Statute of Limi-

(d) THE STATE v. BROOKES.—This bill, filed on the 24th of April, 1793, by
Luther Martin, the Attorney-General on behalf of the State, sets forth, that
John Beall was appointed collector of the taxes for Prince George's County,
and as such, gave bond with Humphrey Belt and Benjamin Brookes, as his
sureties; that Beall having failed to pay over the money he had collected,
suits were brought on his bond, and judgment obtained against Benjamin
Brookes for a considerable amount, which was then due. That afterwards,
Brookes died, having previously, by his will, devised his real estate to his
son Robert in tail, remainder to his son Benjamin in tail, subject to a right
given to his wife and daughter, as described in the will, of using it and
taking a certain portion of the rents and profits thereof; by which will, he
appointed his wife Sarah and his brother Henry his executors. The bill
further states, that the testator's personal estate was insufficient to pay his
debts. Prayer, that the executors might account for the personalty; and
that, if it should be insufficient, the real estate might be sold to pay this debt
due by the deceased to the State.

The executors and the devisee Robert Brookes, were the only persons made
defendants.

HANSON, C., 9th March, 1796.—The claim of the State aforesaid against the
deceased, and the insufficiency of the personal estate to discharge it being
established to the Chancellor's satisfaction, and it appearing reasonable under
all circumstances, that the land in the bill and answers mentioned, which
hath been devised by the deceased to the defendant Robert Brookes, be sold
for the payment of the just debts of the deceased. Decreed, that they be
sold, &c. &c. and that the trustee give notice to the creditors of the deceased
to bring in their claims, &c.

A sale was accordingly made, and before it was reported, the defendant
Sarah petitioned that it might not be ratified; because of the objections
therein stated. On the 3d of May, 1796, an order was passed appointing a
day for hearing, and allowing the parties to take testimony in the usual
manner.

HANSON, C., 9th June, 1796.—The Chancellor has considered the petition
of Sarah Brookes for setting aside the sale, made by the trustee of the real
estate of Benjamin Brookes, and the depositions returned, agreeably to the