558 BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND.

Mitcbell, John Hughes, and Charlotte his wife, Thomas Herbert,
and Elizabeth his wife, Samuel Hopkins, and Mary his wife,
Joseph Hopkins, and Clemency his wife, Thomas Chesney, and
Hannah his wife, all of full age, and Edward Mitchell and Ann
Mitcbell, infants. The bill states that James Mitchell, the father
of the plaintiffs, died some five years previous intestate and
seized in fee simple of several parcels of land, which descended to
his children and heirs, Martin Mitchell, Kent Mitchell, Bennet
Mitchell, and Harriett Mitchell, with these plaintiffs, James Mitch-
ell and Aquila Mitcbell, that upon the petition of James and Aqnila
to Harf'ord County Court, under the Act to Direct Descents for a
partition of the land so descended, a commission was accordingly
issued and returned to that Court, stating that, by reason of a
valuable tishery, it could not be divided without loss, and that the
lands bad been valued altogether at $9,830. Upon which, on the
15th of March, 1810, William Mitchell, being the purchaser of
Martin Mitchell, the eldest heir's share, came into that Court, and
elected to take the lands at the valuation. Since which election,
William Mitcbell had died intestate, leaving these defendants bis
heirs, and without having paid to these plaintiffs any part of the
value due to them; that administration on the personal estate of
William Mitcbell, deceased, had been granted to the defendant,
and that the personal estate of the intestate William was alto-
gether insufficient to pay his debts. Whereupon the bill prayed
that the said lands, which were at law and in equity charged with
the plaintiff's demand, might be sold to pay the amount due to
the plaintiff's. Jarrett's Lessee v. Cooley, 6 H. & J. 258.

* On the 21st of December. 1811, the defendant Parker
587 Mitchell put in his answer, in which he admits the proceed
ings in Harf'ord County Court, for a partition of the intestate
James' estate among his six children, the election of William,
and also the fact of his having purchased the share of Martin
Mitchell, as stated in the bill; and then says that his father, the
intestate William, had moreover purchased one-half of the share
of Bennett, the other half of which was purchased by this de-
fendant, who had also bought the share of Kent Mitchell,
another of the heirs of the intestate James; and that there was
a very valuable fishery upon the land called Cooley's Fishery, for
which an action of ejectment had been brought, and was then de-
pending. Upon all which this defendant submitted, that if a de-
cree should pass for a sale, that the fishery should be retained, or
not sold until necessary, &c.

The other adult defendants, by their answer, filed on the 22d of
December, 1811, say that they have no general knowledge of the
matters set forth in the bill; but do not deny the truth of its alle-
gations, and recommended a sale. The infant defendants put in