490 POST v. MACKALL—3 BLAND.

With a recollection of these established principles, it will be
necessary to take a general survey of these claims, in order to un-

a considerable loss was incurred by the estate; that the real estate re-
tained by the executor was greatly mismanaged by him, and the profits
thereby considerably diminished; that the land purchased from Samuel
T. Garey and wife, which was ordered to be conveyed to Henry Grace,
in case he would pay the price or purchase money contracted by him to
be paid to the said Jacob Gibson, for the same, was sold by the executors
to other persons at a much less price, and was denied to the said Henry
Graoe, as these defendants have been informed, although he offered to pay
for the same the price he had contracted to give, by which means a loss of
upwards of five hundred dollars was incurred, and that the said executor
has altogether omitted to charge himself with the proceeds of the sale of
said land. That the suit between the said Jacob Gibson and James Tilton.
Jun. respecting certain negroes of considerable value was given up by the
said executor Edward R. Gibson. and not prosecuted by him; that $2,063.62
worth of property, which was appraised, was never sold; but alleged by the
executor aforesaid, to have been either lost, worn out, used in the family,
or not worth being sold; that the said executor received an allowance of
ten percent, commission on $21,972.47, the amount of the personal assets
returned by him, instead of six per cent, commission, as was the wish of
the said Jacob Gibson: that the said executor also charged the estate for ex-
penses incurred by him in making crops of wheat and Indian corn, &c. in
the years 1818 and 1819, amounting to the sum of $14,342.50, the enormous
sum of $6.512.67, and was allowed the same."

On the15th of July. 1825, the defendants Fayette Gibson and Blake, filed
their answers: the non-resident defendants having failed to answer as
warned by publication, and the other defendants having also failed to
answer, the case was brought before the Court; and on the 22d of January,
1828, the bill was dismissed by the Chancellor with costs: as to which, see
3 G. & J. 13. The reasons and grounds of the Chancellor's decree having
been more fully considered in the analogous case of Lingan v. Henderson, 1
Bland, 236. From this decree the plaintiff appealed; and the case having
been brought before that tribunal was heard by it as constituted of Judges
BUCHANAN, MARTIN and DORSEY.

THE COURT OF APPEALS.—13th July, 1831.—This case having been argued
by the counsel for the appellant, and considered by the Court; and, foras-
much as it appears, that there is error in the decree of the Chancellor, the
plea of limitations, filed in the cause, not operating as a bar to all relief; but
only as a protection to the interest of the party pleading it, in the land
sought to be affected by the bill of the complainant; and the Court being of
opinion, that the appellant was entitled to relief.

It is therefore Decreed, that the decree of the Chancellor passed in this
cause be and the same is hereby reversed with costs in this Court. And that
the said cause be remanded to the Court of Chancery, and that the Chancel-
lor pass such order and decree in the premises as justice and equity may
require.

For the opinion of the Court of Appeals on which this decree was founded,
see 3 G. & J. 16.—This decree, a certified copy of which was filed in this
case, appears to have been signed by Judges MARTIN and DORSEY only. The
Constitution declares, that the Court of Appeals shall be constituted of six