518 HALL v. McPHERSON.—3 BLAND.

$7,873.44, were, upon the principles laid down, entitled to a prefer-
ence, and were awarded a full satisfaction, accordingly. The rest
of the creditors who had established their claims were allowed a
due proportion of the balance of the estate, amounting to $9,992.56,
according to the amount of their respective claims as directed.

BLAND, C., 18th June, 1832.—Ordered, that the foregoing re-
port of the auditor be and the same is hereby ratified and con-
firmed; and the said administrator and trustees are directed to
apply the assets and proceeds accordingly with a due proportion
of interest. But the final adjustment of the account of the ad-
ministrator de bonis non, and the further extent of his liability are
hereby suspended for the reasons suggested by the auditor until
further order.

After which the proceeds of the sales, as collected, Mere, from
time to time, brought into Court, and distributed, with an allow-
auee * of five per cent, to the trustees for all sums collected
529 by them by suit as attorneys-at-law. Without any further
controversy as to the rights oi the creditors or parties, the case
seems to ha've been, on the 28th of September, 1836, finally closed.

HALL r. MCPHEESON.

INJUNCTIONS.—DECREE TO ACCOUNT.—EFFECT OF DISCHARGE UNDER INSOL-
VENT LAW.

On the filing of a bill for an injunction the defendant may instantly put in
his answer, so as thereby to prevent the granting of an injunction as
prayed, (a)

A party may be compelled, in a summary way, to pay the costs due to a com-
missioner.

As by a decree to account the defendant becomes an actor, the plaintiff can-
not thereafter dismiss his bill without notice to the defendant by a rule
further proceedings.

A person who has been finally discharged under the insolvent law cannot
sue or be sued in relation to any property so transferred to his trustee
for the benefit of his creditors.

A discharge under the insolvent law of a party to a pending suit, does not
operate as an abatement: but the suit becoming thereby defective, the
defect must be removed before the suit can be allowed to proceed.

THIS bill was filed on the 21st of April, 1826, by Thomas I. Hall,
administrator of Thomas Tongue, against Thomas T. McPherson.

(a) Cited in Bell v. Purvis, 15 Md. 23; Krone v. Krone, 27 Md. 81. See
Salmon v Clagett, ante, 125, note.