496 POST v. MACKALL.—3 BLAND.

satisfaction. And this principle has been applied in all such cases,
as well under the peculiar circumstances, in the life-time as after

all the claims; and that the heirs of Harriet Bennett and John W. Blake
have filed the same plea and objection to all the claims, except that of the
complainant.

On the 23d of December, 1836. the defendants Reynolds and wife, Edward
R. Gibson. Fayette Gibson, the heirs of Harriet Bennett, the heirs of John
W. Blake, and the devisees of Lloyd, relied on the Act of Limitations, laches
and lapse of time, against claim No. 7. On, the 22d of July. 1836. the defend-
ants Reynolds and wife, relied on the Act of Limitations against claim No.
2. On the 11th of February, 1837. the defendant Rebecca Gibson relied on
the Act of Limitations against claims No. 2 and 7. On the 16th of May.
1839, the defendants Clara Tilton and the heirs of Harriet Bennett, relied on
the Act of Limitations against claims No. 2, 7 and 8. On the 8th of Febru-
ary, 1840, the defendant the Farmers Bank, relied on the Act of Limita-
tions, laches, and lapse of time, against claims No. 2, 3, 4. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10:
and required, that the same should be fully proved. On the 25th of Febru-
ary. 1840, the defendants Sheets and wife, and the heirs of John W. Blake,
and of Harriet Bennett, relied on the Act of Limitations against claims No.
2, 3,4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10; and Sheets and wife, at the same time, relied on
the Act of Limitations against claim No. 1. On the 16th of September, 1840,
the defendants James Tilton and wife, relied on the Act of Limitations
against claims No. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. On the 19th of October. 1840,
Lloyd's devisee relied on the Act of Limitations against claims No. 2. 3, 4, 5.
6, 7, 8, 9 and 10; and also required full proof thereof.

On the 3d of November, 1840. the defendant the bank, excepted to the
claims of Lloyd and Blake, grounded on their alleged payment of debts due
by the deceased, as having no just foundation: and as being barred by the
Act of Limitations. And on the same day the plaintiff excepted, in like
manner, and also relied on the Act of Limitations against claims No. 2. 3, 4.
5. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

On the 11th of July, 1840, the heirs of Harriet Bennett and of John W,
Blake, excepted to the report of the auditor; 1. That the claims to which
they have objected have not been rejected. 2. That in the said report he has
assumed two valuations of the real estate, neither of which is based on suffi-
cient testimony. 3. That he has assumed as the basis of valuation the esti-
mate made many years ago: whereas, it ought to be taken as of its present
value. 4th. That having assumed as the basis of value an estimate made
many years ago. he has reduced the estimate to make it correspond with the
difference between the estimate of Marengo and the sum for which it actu-
ally sold; whereas, different causes may have operated to increase or dimin-
ish in equal or less degree the value of each piece of property: and the
assumption is without proper evidence to sustain it. 5th. That he has not
shewn what deduction ought to be made from the claim of the complainant
in consequence of the plea of limitations, set up and allowed, of Clara
Tilton and James Tilton. 6th. That he has not shewn what part of the claim
of McCormick the plaintiff, as against the heirs of Gibson, rests upon the
ground of substitution; and what part of the portion of the said claim to be
paid by these defendants they ought to be relieved from, under the opinion
of the Court of Appeals, in consequence of a failure of proof as to the
claims paid out of the personal estate, in whose place a substitution on the
part of McCormick is sought to be established. 7th. That the said re-
port is not complete and full, and does not shew the liabilities of any por-