150 McKIM v. THOMPSON.

sale equal to the stun allowed to him as commissions upon the
whole, by a previous order of the court In such case the court
cannot revoke its order, merely because of the death of the trus-
tee; and, therefore, the only mode in which this double charge
could be prevented or corrected, would be to alter the practice, so
as to postpone the payment of the trustee's commission until the
whole of his duties had been performed, or to authorize summary
proceedings to be instituted, to make his representatives refund in
part, with which the succeeding trustee may be compensated for
his trouble in collecting the balance. Under such circumstances, it
seems to be fair, by way df analogy to the rule laid down by the
legislature in regard to sheriffs, and others,(b) to apportion the
commission or poundage, where it can be done, between the pre-
ceding and succeeding trustee according to the sum which each
may have collected, or on a consideration of the trouble and merits
of each. But in this case the fund has been already charged with
full commissions; and therefore should not now be again charged
with more than a necessary recompense to the present trustee for
his trouble; which in this, as in all similar cases, must be regulated
according to the services actually rendered.

Whereupon, it is ordered, that this trustee be and he is hereby
allowed half commissions on the amount stated to have been
received by him.

McKIM v. THOMPSON.

To obtain an order upon a defendant to bring money into court, before the final hear-
ing, it must appear, that he who asks for such an order has an interest in the money
proposed to be called in; and that he who has it in his hands has no equitable right
to it; and the facts from which this appears must be found in the case as it then
stands, either admitted or so established as to be open to no further controversy at
any subsequent stage of the proceedings.

A defendant cannot be allowed to put in a supplemental answer, except under very
special circumstances.

An appeal does not Me from a mere interlocutory order, by which nothing is finally
settled between the parties.

The case referred, and a decree upon the award.

It appears, that Marcus Heyland, for the purpose of carrying on
the business of a merchant in the city of Baltimore, went to Eng-

——————————————__~_————————————————0—————,—————————————«————————————————————————«______________.. , , ,,.., ....

(b) 17*95, ch. 88, s. 6; 1813, ch. 102, s. 5; Bac. Abr. tit. Sheriff (I).