WILLIAMSON 9. WILSOff. 45^9

while he acted as such. And he is hereby directed and required
to yield up and deliver over unto the said Schky, so soon as he
shall have been qualified to act as receiver as before mentioned, all
the goods, wares and merchandise, books, papers, and effects of
the said firm which may have been received by him the said WU»
liamson, or which he may now hold or have under his control.
And it is further ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted in
this case be and the same is hereby continued in full force until the
hearing or further order.

After which Jacob Schley, having filed his bond with approved
surety as required, proceeded to act as authorized; and on the 8th
May 1826 made a report, on oath, in which he stated, that he had
obtained possession of the books and papers of the firm, and a
large amount of their goods and effects, which, as he represented,
it would be most for the benefit of all concerned to have sold at
auction on a credit.

9th May, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Upon consideration of
the report of the receiver, it is ordered, that Jaco6 Schley, the said
receiver, be and he is hereby authorized and required to sell the
goods, wares and merchandise in the said report mentioned on a
credit of four months for approved endorsed notes, according to the
usual course and manner of selling goods at auction in the city of
Baltimore. And he is hereby further authorized and directed to
sell any other goods, wares and merchandise, being the joint pro-
perty of the said parties, which may come to his hands, in such
manner as he may deem most beneficial and best for the interest of
all concerned.

It was also ordered on the same day, that the exceptions to the
defendants' answer should stand for hearing on the first day of June
then next. And on the 17th of July following, on the admission
of the defendants' solicitor, it was ordered that the exceptions be
sustained, and that the defendants make a more full and perfect
answer on or before the first day of the next term. On the
same 17th July, the plaintiff by his petition stated, that a large sum
had been collected by the receiver, which he prayed might be
distributed among the creditors of the firm; sundry creditors
of the firm also filed their petitions in this case, alleging that
the receiver had in Ms hands a large amount, which they prayed
might be applied in satisfaction of their claims. And at the