WILLIAMSON v. WILSON. 419

The mode of having creditors called in, and their claims adjusted before the auditor

in a creditor's suit.
The originally suing creditor's claim having been decided upon, or so much of it as

has been decided upon by the decree, cannot be afterwards drawn in question.
The statute of limitations, or any other just opposition, may be relied on or made

against a claim brought in under the decree by any one of the original parties, or

by a co-creditor.
After a reasonable time a final account may be ordered, rejecting all claims not then

sufficiently authenticated.

By this bill, filed on the 3d of April, 1826, it is stated, that the
plaintiff Charles A. Williamson^ and the defendants John B. Wilson
and John JV*. Woodard, had formed a partnership, as commission
merchants and auctioneers in the city of Baltimore, on the 7th of
April, 1824, for the term of three years from that date, by the name
of Wilsonj Williamson & Co.; that they gave bond, with David
Williamson their surety, to the city as auctioneers; that the
business of the partnership was carried on accordingly until the
4th of January, 1826, when the firm became insolvent and stopped
payment; that the defendants have since held, and retained in
their possession, exclusively, all the goods, effects, books, papers,
and vouchers of the firm; and are collecting the debts due, and
wasting and misapplying the property of the partnership, to the
rum of the plaintiff, and to the prejudice of the creditors of the
firm. Upon which the plaintiff prayed for an injunction to restrain
the defendants from collecting the debts; and that a receiver might
be appointed to collect them and to take charge of, and preserve
the goods, debts and effects of the firm for the benefit of all
concerned. The bill was sworn to by the plaintiff in the usual
form.

On the same day the bill was filed, it was submitted to the
Chancellor, upon which it was ordered, that David Williamson,
jun'r, be appointed receiver; and, that an injunction be granted
as prayed. But leave was granted to the defendants to move for
rescinding the order, and the dissolution of the injunction either
before or after filing their answers on giving five days notice of
such motion: and the register was directed to annex a copy of the
order to the writ of injunction.

On the 12th of the same month the defendants, having filed
their answers, gave notice to the plaintiff, that they should, oa
the 14th instant, move, as allowed by the order of the 3d instant.
All the material admissions and allegations of the answer a*e
sufficiently set forth by the Chancellor in his view of the ease.