412 MACKUBIN v. BROWN.

not, during his life, nor had his administrators, since his death,
paid to them their legacies so bequeathed and assigned to them;
and that these petitioners, Eli and Sarah, having been infants and
but recently attained their full age, were therefore prevented from
making an earlier application. Whereupon they prayed, that the
present trustee might be ordered to make report of his proceedings;
that they might be admitted to come in as creditors under the
decree; that the proceeds of the sales already made, might be
applied to the payment of their claims rateably with other claims ;
that the trustee might be ordered to make sale of so much more of
the real estate as would be sufficient to satisfy the claims against
the late Basil Brown; and that they might have such other relief
as the nature of their case required, &c.

6th July, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the peti-
tioners be, and they are hereby permitted to come in as plaintiffs
and creditors in this case, as prayed; subject to all legal objections
that may be made against their claims. And it is further Ordered,
that Rezin Hammond, the trustee, be, and he is hereby directed and
required to make report to this court of the proceedings had under
the said decree for the sale of the real estate of the late Basil
Brown. And it is further Ordered, that the said trustee proceed to
make sale of se much more of the said real estate as, in addition
to the sales heretofore made, will be sufficient to discharge all the
claims that have been exhibited against the said estate.

On the 9th of August, 1826, Samuel Vansant and Mary Jinn
his wife, filed their petition, alleging that she was another of the
children of Mary Marriott, and as such a legatee under the will
of the late William Hammond. In other respects the matter, state-
ments, and prayer of this petition were similar to that of Marriott
and Shipley. On the 25th of January, 1827, Marriott and Shipley
filed another petition, alleging that the trustee had made a report
of the proceedings under the decree, but had taken no steps for a
sale; and praying that he might be ordered to proceed to sell
without delay; and, in respect to the great lapse of time, that the
sale might be for cash; which was on the next day ordered accord-
ingly. On the 6th of March following, they filed a third petition,
in which they allege, that a copy of their last petition, and the
order thereon, had been served on the trustee, but that, as they
verily believed, he had taken no steps to sell the lands, and that he
did not intend to execute his trust. Whereupon they prayed, that