POST v. MACKALL.—3 BLAND. 483

is stated to amount of $1,469.51. And claim No. 27, is against,
the deceased as surety on a bond which is stated to amount of
$6,099.61. The auditor thinks, that the amount of the claim No.
30, if established, should be retained to answer any sum which
may be recovered against the deceased's estate on account of claims
No. 6, and No 27, or the moietj of claims No. 1, 2, and 3, for
which the defendant Edmund Key is liable. The defendant Ed-
mund Key, by letter to the auditor, has also advanced a claim, on
behalf of his wife Margaret J. Key. for the value of certain negroes,
her separate property, which were sold by Benjamin B. Mackall,
the former administrator, and applied to the use of the estate of the
deceased. No proof has been offered to sustain the claim; nor
any data from which the auditor could state the probable amount.
The auditor proposes when the proper materials are furnished to
state the claim as No. 31. And lastly, that claim No. 33, is not
proved in the usual manner.

The auditor further says, that no proof had been furnished to
him of the assets in the hands of Benjamin B. Mackall, surviving
administrator, from which he could state an account. The defen-
dant Louis Mackall, the administrator de bonis non, has filed cer-
tain papers from which the auditor has stated an account A; such
as he supposes would be desired by him. But to the items of that
account No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the auditor objects; because,
they are for moneys paid by the administrator in full of judgments
recovered by creditors of the deceased against the administrator,
as he understands; whereas the personal estate appears to be defi-
cient, and thereiore dividends only of said claims should be al-
lowed. No. 10 and 11, are lor payments made to the Bank of the
United States on account of its claims. As the payments are less
in amount than the dividends which may be allotted to the Bank
on its claims, they ought to be allowed. But it does not distinctly
appear, that credits have been allowed to it for those payments.
There is no evidence of the payment of the sum of $16, and $75,
for officer's fees in 1824, and 1829; and the auditor is unable to
determiue, from the papers before him, whether the allowance of
$124.97 to be retained lor officer's fees, yet due, is correct. There
is no proof, that the negroes for whom an allowance is claimed, to
* amount of $1,005, were mortgaged to the Bank of the United
States, as is alleged. They have not been taken out of the 493
possession of the administrator; and the auditor thinks they should
be accounted for by him, as a part of the personal estate of the intes-
tate, leaving the Bank to prove its claim as it may think proper. The
commission allowed is supposed to be correct, as the Act of 1798 lim-
its the allowance to ten per cent, on the amount of the inventory.
This account A, is also supposed to be erroneous, as no interest is
allowed on the amount of the estate in the hands of the admin-
istrator. The auditor has therefore, stated an account B, from