562 BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND.

sixth each; and to Parker Mitchell, who alleged in his answer,
that be was the purchaser of Kent Mitchell's portion, and the re-
maining half of Bennet Mitchell's portion, their shares accord-
ingly; but that there was no proof of the purchase or payment for
those portions. That all these claims so ascertained against the
estate of the intestate William, including interest to the day of the
trustee's sale, amounted to $8,321.113. The auditor further re-
ported, that Martin Mitcliell. Bennet Mitchell, and Kent Mitchell,
whose interests seemed to be materially affected by these proceed-
ings, were not parties; and, therefore, respectfully submitted,
whether they ought *not, in some shape, to have notice of
591 the complainants' application and the allegations of the
defendants.

KILTY C., 22d June, 1815.—Ordered, that the claims against
the said estate, which are now, or may be exhibited, be de-
cided on during the sittings of the ensuing July term, on ap-
plication. The trustee is -desired to have a copy of this order
published three weeks in the American, and to forward a cer-
tificate of its publication, and the expense, which will be allowed.

A copy of this order having been published as required; the
auditor, by a report dated on the 27th of February, 1816, said,
that he had stated an account between the estate of William
Mitchell, deceased, and the trustee, in which the proceeds of the
estate were first applied to the payment of the trustee's allowance
for commission and expenses, the costs in. this Court, and the seve-
ral claims as heretofore stated and reported; and the balance was
equally divided between the heirs-at-law. of the said William
Mitchell.

KILTY, C., 29th February, 1816.—.Notice having been given, as
directed by the order, of 22d June, 1815, and no application hav-
ing been made in support of the objections suggested in the audi-
tor's first report; and the auditor having appropriated the proceeds
by this statement and report; the same are confirmed, and the pro-
ceeds are directed to be applied accordingly, with interest on the
commission and dividends, in proportion as it has been or may be
received. Waite v. Temple, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 162.

No further proceedings appear to have been had in this case by
any of the parties.

The first of these cases of Brown against Wallace, was insti-
tuted by a bill filed in Harford County Court, on the 8th of May,
1818, by Freeborn Brown and William Brown, against James Wal-
lace. This bill stated, that the plaintiff Freeborn purchased the
lands of the defendant, as mentioned in his report, in the before