McKIM v. THOMPSON.

to other resources to pay the Bells any proportion or divi
dends which they might pay on those acceptances: and this seems
plausible. But whatever may have been the intention of the parties
as to any matters not comprehended in the deed, that contract, in
Itself, is clear and unequivocal. The fund in Thompson's hands
was to be applied to the satisfaction of the demands of certain
designated bill holders; Thompson is clearly and confessedly
aot one of them; he has, therefore, no right or title whatever
to the money which Heyland had placed in his hands for his
Indemnification against them.

It is, therefore, Ordered, that Hugh Thompson bring into this
court, on or before the fourteenth day of April next, the sum of
thirty-nine thousand five hundred and seven dollars and eighty-five
cents, being the value of eight thousand eight hundred and eighty-
nine pounds,£v€ shillings and four pence, sterling money of England,
together with legal interest thereon from the first day of January in
the year eighteen hundred and twelve, which sum, it appears by
the admitted and incontrovertible facts in this case, he had received
from the said Marcus Heyland previous to the fourteenth day of-
September, in the year eighteen hundred and eleven, for the use
of said Heyland's creditors, as specified in the proceedings in this
case; and which the said Hugh Thompson ought, within a reason-
able time thereafter, to have paid to the said creditors; Provided
a copy of this order be served on the said Thompson, on or before
the twenty-fifth day of the present month. And it is further ordered,
that the said sum of money, with the interest thereon, when so
brought into court, be deposited in the Farmers Bank of Maryland
to the credit of this case, subject to further order.

The defendant Thompson, having been advised, that he was not
entitled to an appeal from this order, without any previous appli-
cation to the Chancellor to be allowed to appeal, on the 17th of
February, 1825, presented a petition to the Senate, praying that
the General Assembly of Maryland would pass a special act allow-
ing him the benefit of an appeal; and the plaintiffs on the next
day presented a counter petition to the Senate, which were both
together referred to a committee, who on the 23d of February,
1825, made the following report:

"The committee to whom was referred the petition of Hugh
Thompson, and the counter petition of John McJfim, jun'r., Tho-
mas L Emory, and others, report—That they have considered the