MACKUBIN v. BROWN. 41f

fee, must be charged with the whole amount of the proceeds of
the sales made and reported by him.

But although a negligent or unfaithful trustee may be thus held
liable for the whole amount of any money which he undertook and
became bound to collect, and of which he has failed to give any
account whatever; yet the court, by holding him liable, would
not be understood as thereby, in any case, exonerating any
purchaser, surety, or other person, or subject, from any liability
or lien that might have been enforced for the recovery of the same
money. The party interested may, in the first instance, obtain
satisfaction from such security; or the delinquent trustee may be
first made to pay, and be then left to take the place of the claimant,
and, so far as in equity he may be permitted to do so, to seek relief
from others as he can.

Upon these principles, therefore, it is Ordered, that the excep-
tions of Eli Marriott and others, are sustained, and that of Stockett
and wife is rejected. And the auditor's report, and statements
No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, are approved; and the statements No. 5, 6,
and 7, are rejected. And it is further Ordered, that the trustee,
Nicholas Brewer, jun'r, forthwith proceed to make sale of the real
estate of the late Basil Brown, as directed by the orders of the 6th
of July, 1826, and of the 8th of March, 1827.

On the 20th of March, 1828, Rezin Hammond, the displaced
trustee, filed his petition, in which he states, that being the executor
of Matthias Hammond, who was administrator of Basil Brown, and
trustee for the sale of the real estate of Basil Brown, he had paid
to Eli Marriott the sum of $138, in part satisfaction of his claim
against the estate of the late Basil Brown, to the amount of which
he claims to be considered as the equitable assignee of Eli Mar-
riott; and prays that the present trustee may be ordered to pay the
amount to him out of the share awarded to Marriott. This petition
was submitted without argument.

24th March, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—At no period, and in
no part of all these proceedings does it appear, nor has it before
been even intimated, that this petitioner had any such claim as that
now set up by him; or any claim whatever against Eli Marriott.
It does not very distinctly appear, whether the petitioner claims in
his own right, or in his representative character of executor. But
in either way, if the claim has any real existence whatever, it is a
mere legal one; it has not a shadow of equity about it. It is for

53