166 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ministrator of James Neilson, deceased, a creditor and mort-
gagee of a portion of the property in the proceedings mentioned,
is now, according to the rule, laid before the Chancellor for de-
cision, upon notes, in writing, by the solicitors of the parties.

After reading the notes, and examining and considering the
proceedings in the cause, I have come to the conclusion, that
the mortgage debt of the complainants, it being the oldest in-
cumbrance, must be first paid; but, that this shall be done so
as to inflict as little injury as possible upon those whose claims
stand posterior to it in date, and that to accomplish this end,
it was proper to adopt the course pursued by the Auditor, as
stated in his report of the 13th of November last. That is,
that the mortgage debt of the complainants should be so cast
upofl the mortgaged property, as without injury to the prior in-
cumbrance, should leave the residue of the net proceeds of sale
to satisfy junior incumbrances and subsequent deeds in the or-
der of their priority.

I am, therefore, of'opinion, that as the mortgage to Neilson
and the deed to Richard Caton are anterior in point of time to
the instruments under which Joseph J. Speed and Jacob Snive-
ly claim, they must be preferred to them; and, as by the de-
cree of the 30th of October last, so much of the proceeds of the
sales as Richard Caton should appear to be entitled to, were
directed to be applied to the payment of his debts, such appli-
cation must now be made.

The only question in the case, which remains, and which
seems to present any difficulty, respects the portions of the fund
to be applied to the payment of the mortgage of Neilson, and
to the creditors of Caton.

The property embraced in the mortgage to Neilson, and in
the sale to Caton, consisting of lots numbered 15, 16, 226 and
145, constitute in their area but a small portion of the entire
tract sold, and the difficulty results from the fact, that the en-
tire tract was sold in one mass at so much per acre, so that
nothing appears upon the face of the proceedings by which we
ctett determine the value of these particular lots, relatively to the
residue of the whole tract.