HOYE v. PENN. 43

of the late Charles Penn, sen'r; and, that their claim might be first
fully satisfied out of the surplus of the proceeds of the sale of Penn's
estate.

9th June, 1824.—JOHNSON, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the trustee
do not pay to the representatives of Charles Penn, or their orders,
any further sums of money without the further order of the Court,
or to any other person claiming to represent them, or to allow any
other credits on account of any receipts the representatives may
have or shall give: provided a copy of this order is served before
the payment.

The trustee, on the 11th of June, 1824, reported, that under the
authority of the order of the 25th of October, he had, on the 7th
then instant, resold the tract containing 285 acres, of which James
Ferree had been the purchaser, for $10 50 per acre, amounting
to $2992 50; which sale was absolutely ratified on the 14th of
March, 1826.

The matter of the petition of Hoye and others, filed on the 9th
of June, having been brought before the Court, the solicitors of the
parties were fully heard.

28th February, 1825.—BLAND, Chancellor.—In this case, the
lands of two debtors, Waters and Penn, have been sold under a
decree of this Court, to pay the proportion due from each of a joint
debt. The proceeds of the sales thus made, were reported to be
more than sufficient to answer the whole demand. The securities
for the purchase money were the lands themselves, and the pur-
chasers with personal securities. The purchaser of Waters' land
being, as is alleged, unable to pay, or insolvent; that land itself
was again sent into the market; but owing to the general depre-
ciation of such property, it has not sold for any thing like the original
purchase money, or indeed a sufficiency to pay the proportion of the
debt with which Waters was charged.

But, when the property was taken out of the hands of Waters,
and sold, the parties tacitly conceded, and the Court solemnly
adjudged, by confirming the trustee's report, and thereby divesting
Waters of his real estate, and converting it, for the purposes of this
suit, into personalty,(a) that a sufficiency of his property had
been taken to pay the debt due from him. This debt, as to him,
was then satisfied; for his property having been disposed of, by

(a) The State use Rogers u. Krebs, 6 H. & J. 31.