CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 629 .

ral creditor; is unsustained by any evidence; and is barred by the
Statute of Limitations. Thirdly. Because Carroll's claim is not
sustained by any evidence; is not admissible as a bona fide and
regular judgment claim; or as that of an equitable or of a general
creditor; and is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Fourthly.
Because the claims of Eli Balderson and James Neilson are un-
supported by any evidence; and are barred by the Statute of Limi-
tations. Fifthly. Because it has rejected from his claim, No. 16,
the items designated as expenditures since the last entry in the
Cape Sable Company's books of December 31st, 1828; and also
those designated as the third, sixth, seventh, and eighth, or last
errors claimed by him to be corrected; and insists, that the amount
of capital, additional capital, and negro capital, ought to be de-
ducted from the amount of his claim. Sixthly. Because it insists,
that the assignment to James Neilson and Rosewell L. Colt by this
exceptant, entitles Neilson's claim to be paid out of this excep-
tant's claim. No. 16, in preference to Paul Bustu Seventhly.
Becauhe it ought to have allowed his claim absolutely and fully as
he has stated it, and without any reservation or deduction. And
* eighthly, Because it declares, that Lechleitner and Troost

are not respectively, or in any way to be considered as part- 652
ners of the Cape Sable Company, or of the persons composing the as-
sociation incorporated as the Cape Sable Company; or that any
agreement of them, or either of them exists.as stated.

Leonard Foreman, Benjamin Welsh, and .lames A. Sangstou,
rely on the first, second, third and fourth exceptions of Lechleit-
ner; and aver, that their respective claims are fully proved, and
are not barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Gerard Troost relies on the first, second, third, fourth, and
eighth exceptions of P. G. Lechleifner; and also excepts to it,
because it insists, that his claim ought to be lessened by any
deduction tor capital, additional capital, or negro capital; and
because of its denying the sufficiency of his vouchers fully to sustain
his claim.

And William O'Hara also excepted to this report, other than so
much of it as relates to the judgment claims. First. Because they
are not proved according to law. Secondly. Because they never
had any legal existence. Thirdly. Because they are barred by
limitations. And he also relies on all the objections made by the
auditor against the claims therein mentioned.

The claim of Philip G. Lechleitner for an allowance out of the
proceeds of sale for certain fixtures to which he asserted a right,
and which were included with the property sold, having been
referred to arbitration, the arbitrators returned an award; which,
by an order passed on the 27th of April, 1831, was finally ratified
and confirmed.