30 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

that capacity; and this view of the object of the deed is con-
firmed by the evidence of the trustee himself, examined on the
part of those sureties.

The Chancellor entertains a decided opinion, that the parties
entitled to the proceeds of the estate of the deceased, would
have a right to insist that the mortgaged property should be
applied rateably to the payment of the debts to the bank, and
the amount due by the trustee to the estate of Williams, and if
so, that the sureties of the mortgagor in his bond as guardian—
admitting that bond to be the responsible obligation—have the
same right. Indeed, the counsel for the sureties in the trustee's
bond were not understood to deny that the bank and the repre-
sentatives of the deceased would have a right to insist upon the
application of the mortgaged property, but they dispute the
right of the sureties in the guardian's bond, for want of privity.

But if the devisees of Williams would have this right, then-
the mortgaged property must be regarded as a security held by
them for the payment of their claim, and if so, it would seem
to follow, that upon the payment of their claim by the sureties
of their guardian, the latter would have a right to insist upon
an assignment to them of those securities. Cheesborough vs.
Millard, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep., 130. The Chancellor will pass an
order founded upon the views here presented; and being also
of opinion that Mrs. Williams is entitled for life to the interest
upon the entire proceeds of the estate sold, will likewise pass
an order to that effect.

[No appeal was taken from the order in this case.]