CECIL VS. DORSEY. 223

[The Chancellor after applying the principles laid down in
Boyer vs. Turner, 3 H. & J., 285, and Lewis, use of Ringgold's
admr's vs. Hoblitzell's admr's, 6 G. & J., 260, to the facts of
this case as stated above, to show neglect nn the part of the
assignee, in consequence of which and in the absence of any
excuse, there could be no recovery, against the assignor, goes
on to say: ]

It would, therefore, seem to follow, that no recovery could
be had upon these notes against Martin, the assignor, and that,
consequently, the claim, as to him, must be regarded as satis-
fied, and the lien of the vendor extinguished. That lien ex-
isting for his security, this view of the case, brings it expressly,
within the principle decided by the Court of Appeals, in Schneb-
ly, and Lewis vs. Ragan, before referred to.

[No appeal was taken from this decree.]

OWEN CECIL

vs. MARCH TERM, 1848.
MARY ANN DORSEY ET AL.

[PARTITION—RETURN OF COMMISSIONERS—PRACTICE.]

AN objection to a return made upon a commissioner for partition, that the
commissioners did not distribute the estate by lot, but at their own discretion,
assigned the several shares to the parties interested, cannot be sustained,
either by the practice of the court, the act of Assembly, or the rule of the
English Court of Chancery in similar cases.

When partition is made by agreement of parties, one of the modes known to
the common law is, by drawing lots; but, there is no authority for saying,
that when a compulsory partition is made by judicial process, recourse must
be had to lots to determine the portion which each party is to take.

The legislature did not mean to confine the commissioners to a particular mode
of making the partition; they may, if they please, award to each of the par-
ties his share of the thing to be divided, or they may, at the proper stage of
the proceedings, draw lots; and their return, otherwise unexceptionable,
will not be set aside because they have adopted either of these modes.

It is a fatal objection to a return, that the value of the estate, in money, has
not been stated by the commissioners.