486 POST v. MACKALL.—3 BLAND,

sent to the sale, or claim under the decree thay are bound by it.
Kenebel v. Scrafton, 13 Ves. 370; Hammond v. Hammond, 2 Bland,
388. But, m general, for the protection of purchasers, the surplus of
the proceeds of the sale will not be paid to the mortgagor, his in-
heritor, or a defendant, where it is shewn, that there are outstand-
ing incumbrancers who have not come in, or been made parties to
the suit; and the sale has not been made subject to such incum-
brances. St. Antonio v. Adderly, 12 Cond. Cha. Rep. 372. Hence
it would be wholly unnecessary and improper to order a convey-
ance, as prayed by this petition.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the said petition be and the same
is hereby dismissed with costs.

The defendant Christiana Mackall, not having answered the bill
filed on the tenth of February, an interlocutory decree was passed
against her according to the Act of Assembly; 1820, ch. 161, s. 1;
and a commission was issued and returned, but without any tes-
timony. Whereupon it was decreed, on the 24th of March, 1831,
that the trustees appointed by the decree of the 4th of May, 1830,
make sale of the real estate, clear of all claim of this defendant
Christiana Mackall * for dower as widow oi the late Beiija-
496 min Mackall. After which the trustees reported, that they
had, on the 15th of October, 1831, sold all those parts of the real
estate which had been assigned to her for her dower: winch sales
were finally ratified on the 20th of January, 1832.

BLAND, C., 10th November, 1831.—On motion it is ordered,
that the report of the auditor, together with all the excep-
tions thereto; and also all the objections to the claims of the
creditors, stand for hearing on the 25th day of January next; and
that the parties and creditors be and they are hereby authorized to
take testimony in relation to the said report and claims of creditors
therein mentioned, before any justice of the peace, on giving three
days notice as usual; provided, that the said testimony be taken
and filed in the Chancery office, on or beiore the tenth day of
January next. But to avoid unnecessary delay and trouble; and
at the same time to ensure an effectual investigation of the merits
of each subject of litigation, it is to be understood, that the notice
of the taking of testimony required to be given, must be to the
creditor against whose claim the testimony proposed to be taken
is to be directed; and if the testimony is proposed to be taken by
a creditor in support of his claim, then he must give notice to the
defendants in the case or their solicitor: or to two or more credi-
tors or their solicitors.

The auditor, on the 24th of January, 1832, made a further
report, in which he says, that he had examined four additional