McKIM v. THOMPSON. 159

auditor shewed a balance in the defendant's hands, to which he
was not entitled: in such case, after the time allowed to except to
it, had expired; and after it had been confirmed, an order was
granted to have the money brought into court, (j) And this not
on the ground of any admission pf the party; for the truth might
have been, that he contested every item and every point before the
auditor; hut upon the ground, that* the court was presented with
facts in that stage of the case, which had been established in a
due course of judicial proceeding, which could not thereafter be, in
any manner, questioned or denied by the same party; for an order
confirming a report of the auditor is, in this respect, a judgment
of the court, (k)

The objects and inducements for making an interlocutory order,
or partial decision of this kind, are to remove the fund out of
danger; to place it in a state of the greatest security for the benefit
of all concerned; and, by circumscribing the field of controversy,
to accelerate the further progress of the case, and save costs; since
it is evident, the parties will spin it out while they have the advan-
tage of keeping the money. (1)

Hence it appears, that those who make this motion, must shew,
that, however much more may be due, they have an interest in the
sum of money proposed to be called" in; and that he who holds it
in his possession, has no equitable right or title to it whatever.
And the facts on which these positions are to be based, must be
found in the case as it then stands, either admitted, or so estab-

(j) Gordon v. Rothley, 3 Ves. 572; Fox v. Mackreth, 3 Bro. C. C. 45.

(k) Brown v. Barkham, 1 P. Will. 653.

TAYLOR v. WOOD—25th July, 1315.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The report of the auditor
in this case was filed on the 25th of March last, and having laid during the present
term without any exception being filed thereto, is liable to be confirmed, or otherwise
acted on without further notice. And it is now taken up, on motion of the com-
plainant. The balance reported as due from or in the hands of the defendants, Owens
& Smith, is $13,925 29. Against this there are some further credits, which are
extended, but not yet established or allowed, which, if allowed, would reduce the
balance to f 11,837 35.

On the present state of the accounts, it is Ordered, that the said Owens & Smith
do forthwith deposit in the Farmers Bank of Maryland, to the credit of the estate of
William Robb, the sum of $13,337 35, which will be liable to a deduction and return
of the further credits for expenses and commission, if allowed, and also the sum of
$1509, claimed on account of A. Stewart, if established. The balance then remaining
will be subject to the order of the court, on a further report to be made by the auditor
as to the claim of the creditors, including the defendants.

(1) Roberts v. Hartley, 1 Bro. C. C. 56; Gordon v. Rothley, 8 Ves.572.