506 POST v. MACKALL.—3 BLAND.

them parties to the same suit; or if the two funds cannot be cm-
braced within the scope of the same suit; and much more so, if
they be not both of them within the jurisdiction of the Court, it
would be utterly impracticable to make any such arrangement in
favor of any one set of creditors against another, the security of
whose claim may be thus greatly endangered, and the satisfaction
of which most necessarily be delayed and consequently lessened.
Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves. 734; Ex parte Kendall, 17 Ves. 520; Avers-
ion v. Booth, 19 John. Rep. 48C; The York & Jersey Steamboat
Ferry Company v. The Associates of the Jersey Company, 1 Hopkins,
400.

It is believed, that although the real estate of a deceased debtor
may be subjected to the payment of his debts in most of the States
*of this Union; yet in each one, the mode of administering
516 such assets is materially different. The general creditors
have, is some States, greater difficulties to encounter than in
others; the right of preference and the classification of creditors
varies; and in some the real assets are within reach of all, while

parties interested to see, without reading the report, the result at which it
arrives.

Soon after which the auditor reported, that in conformity with his sugges-
tion in his report of the 8th instant, he has prepared and now submits here-
with accounts A, B, C, and D. Accounts A, and B, present the views of
the auditor as stated in his said report. Account C, shews the liabilities of
the several parties to each other, if the bank is allowed to claim by substitu-
tion, or as a general creditor for the amount lost on Edward Gibson's devise.
Account D, has been prepared under the instruction of the solicitor of the
bank; and awards to that institution payment of its debt in full; leaving a
small balance unappropriated.

On the 23d of April, 1841, the plaintiff, the heirs of Bennett, and of Blake,
and Mrs. Tilton and James Tilton, excepted to this report of the auditor; and
on the day following the bank filed their exceptions to it. Soon after which
the case was submitted without argument.

BLAND, C., 29th April, 1841.—Ordered, that the foregoing accounts, desig-
nated as accounts A. and B, as made and reported by the auditor, be and
the same are hereby ratified and confirmed; and the trustee is directed to
apply the proceeds accordingly, with a due proportion of interest, that has
been or may be received. All other parts of the said reports of the auditor
filed on the 9th of March last, together with all exceptions to the same, which
are in any way at variance with this order, are hereby overruled and rejected.

It is understood that the parties acquiesced in the propriety of this order,
and finally adjusted the case among themselves accordingly.

This case has been inserted here as a leading one in relation to the Statute
of Limitations when relied on in a creditor's suit; and the nature and ope-
ration of its principles may be deemed to have been sufficiently illustrated
by what is here said, together with what has been stated of it in the other
reports of it referred to as above.