386 DEAKINS' CASE.—2 BLAND.

KILTY, C., 27th April, 1819.—It appears that the land devised
Mrs. J. Peaking has been considered by the trustee as liable to
sale under the decree, instead of the estate devised to Francis
Deakins for the payment of debts. The trustee is, therefore,
directed not to proceed to the sale of the land mentioned in the
petition and in the advertisement, lying at the mouth of the Senaca,
until further order: which may be made on hearing after such notice
as may be directed.

On the 6th of June, 1821, John Hoye filed his bill of revivor,
stating that Edward Thomas had died without answering his bill
filed on the 18th of January, and that he had, by his will appointed
William E. King and Edward T. Hebb his executors, agaiuat whom
he prayed that his suit might be revived, and therefore prayed sub-
po3nas against them.

After which, John Hoye, on the 30th of June, 1821, filed his
petition, in which he recites all these before-mentioned proceedings,
and that the sale might not be made before the determination of
his suit commenced by his bill tiled on the 18th of January, he
prayed that the trustee might be directed to suspend the sale until
further order. The allegations of this petition were verilied by his
affidavit.

KILTY, C., 2nd July, 1821.—In the bill by Hoye against Thomas,
no mention was made of the decree for a sale, which, if improperly
obtained, ought to be set aside. At present the trustee John A.
T. Kilgour is directed not to make any sale under the decree till
further order.

On the 22nd of January, 1822, the defendants King and Hebb
put in their joint answer to the original bill and bill of revivor of
Hoye, in which, after admitting most of the facts stated in the
bill, they allege by way of avoidance, that Hoye had it not in his
power to make them a good title to the lands mentioned in the
agreement; that he had not complied with the agreement on his
part, by reason of which they were in no respect bound by it; that
the validity of the agreement had, by plea, been put in issue in a
suit at law between them, but had been withdrawn and a judg-
ment by confession rendered; and consequently, it could not now
be of any avail to the plaintiff Hoye.

* BLAND, C., 24th November, 1824. The arguments of
403 counsel having been heard, the proceedings were read and
considered.

This case has been brought before this Court by two separate
and original proceedings, which have now become intimately and
necessarily blended. The ex parte petition of Edward Thomas