414 MACKUBIN v. BROWN.

Fansant and Mary Jinn his wife, or their solicitors on or before
the twenty-third instant.

After which the matter was brought before the court, and having
been discussed by the solicitors of the parties, the case was infor-
mally referred to the auditor for the purpose of stating accounts
upon the principles assumed by the respective parties. But, as
they could not agree as to some points deemed important, the case
was again submitted to the Chancellor for his instructions upon
the following questions:

" Can the heirs at law of Brown, in this stage of the proceed-
ings, impeach the correctness of the administration accounts ? Are
those accounts to be presumed correct until the contrary is shewn
by the heirs at law, or are the petitioning creditors bound in the
first instance to prove the correctness of said accounts ? Can those
accounts be opened for the purpose of charging interest on balances
in the hands of the administrators at any time prior to the passing
of the final account ?"

6th July, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The decree for a sale,
having been founded upon the fact of the insufficiency of the
deceased's personal estate to pay his debts, has necessarily estab-
lished that point. Therefore the correctness of the administrator's
accounts cannot now be impeached by the heir for the purpose of
turning any creditor, who comes in after that decree, away from
the pursuit of the real assets under it, to seek payment out of the
personal assets. This general expression of his opinion, the
Chancellor conceives, will be a sufficient answer to the three ques-
tions submitted. But if the solicitors have other views, or wish
for more special directions, the Chancellor would rather hear them
first.

Whereupon it is ordered, that this case be and the same is hereby
referred to the auditor with directions to state an account accord-
ingly, or such other accounts as may be required by either party.

On the 5th of September 1827, the auditor returned and filed his
report of sundry statements made according to the nature of the
case and as required by the parties. To this report both parties
excepted, and the case was thus again brought before the court.

4th October, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The matter of the
petitions filed in this case by Marriott and Shipley, and by Fansant
, that of Stockett and wife in opposition thereto standing ready