WILLIAMSON v. WILSON. 433

proportion which each one of them may be entitled to receive 0ut
erf the funds in the Tiands of the receiver after all just allow-
ances have been made. And also to state such other accounts as
the nature of the case, or the parties may require.

The first receiver, David Williamson jun'r, who was appointed
on the third, and removed on the twenty-fourth day of April last,
is hereby allowed one per cent, on the amount now about to be
distributed among the creditors of the said firm. The present
receiver Jacob Schley is hereby allowed eight per cent, on the same
amount, as a compensation for his trouble in receiving the same;
and in paying over to each creditor his portion thereof, according
to the statement of the auditor, after it shall have been confirmed
by the Chancellor. Each of these receivers are also to be allowed
such expenses as they may either of them have incurred, as such,
in the defence and preservation of the property committed to their
keeping, and in the execution of the trust reposed in them; of
which expenditures they shall produce before the auditor vouchers
authenticated in the usual manner.

On the 13th February, 1827, the auditor made a report, with a
statement of the distribution of the funds among the creditors who
had then filed their claims. Assuming as directed the principles
and rules of the court applicable to claims brought in under a cre-
ditors' bill, the auditor stated, that there were then filed thirty-two
claims; that many of them were not proved as required; that
others were founded on endorsed notes or joint liabilities, and those
who were so jointly liable with the firm were not shewn to be mere
sureties or insolvent; and that others were objectionable in their
nature because of its not clearly appearing that they were properly
debts due from the firm. This report, at the instance of the
receiver, was revised by the auditor to rectify some mistakes as to
the amount stated to be in his hands; and to let in some allow-
ances to him for his expenses; and another statement was reported
by the auditor on the 22d February 1827.

The plaintiff by his petition alleged, that the evidence to sup-
port his exceptions to the claims of Charles Cappeau, Garrett
Brown, Charles and J. Walker, and Lot Ridgely, was within tie
fcnowledge of those parties respectively. Wherefore he prayed,
that they might be oidered to answer those exceptions on oatib.

36th March, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that Charles
Cappeau, Garrett Brown, Charles and J. Walker, and Lot Ridgely

55