444 JONES v. JONES.

that on the 1st of July 1824 a fieri facias was issued on this judg-
ment, from the Court of Appeals; and on the 16th of August
following this defendant Brown, being then sheriff of Kent county,
levied it on a tract of land, the property of Jesse Jones; that Jesse
Jones, after having made a partial payment to this sheriff, died in
the month of August 1825; that after his death the lands which
had been so taken in execution were, on the 3d of September
1825, sold by this sheriff Brown, subject to the dower of the widow
of the late David Jones, and of the widow of the late Jesse Jones ;
that from the proceeds of the sale, this sheriff Brown had paid the
whole amount due to Dawson with the costs; and had retained to
the amount of his own poundage fees; and also the sum of $65 50
for the payment of taxes and officers' fees placed in his hands for
collection, leaving a balance in his hands of $1451 38.

Upon all which the plaintiffs by their bill prayed, that the land
of which Jesse Jones died seized might be sold; that the proceeds
thereof, with the balance remaining in the hands of the defendant
Brown, might be paid into the hands of a trustee appointed by this
court, to be applied, under its direction, to the payment of their
debts, and such other claims, if any, as might be clue from the
intestate Jesse Jones; and that they might have such other relief as
was suited to the nature of their case.

The defendants Spencer and Brown each put in a separate
answer; the infant defendants answered jointly by their guardian;
and all of them admitted the truth of the allegations of the bill.

16th July, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing without opposition from the defendants, the soli-
citor of the plaintiffs was fully heard, and the proceedings read and
considered.

The peculiar nature of this case seems to require a more than
usually attentive consideration. Putting aside so much of it as
relates to the small parcel of land of which the intestate died
seized, about which there can be no difficulty; this is the case of
a creditors5 bill, in which it appears, that the real estate of the debtor
had been taken in execution, during his lifetime, and sold after
Ms death, leaving a balance, which even yet remains in the hands
of the sheriff whose official term must have since expired,, and who
has been brought here as a defendant, unassociated with any per-
sonal representative of the intestate. These circumstances present
a ease in which it becomes necessary to determine the extent of the
power of the sheriff to follow out, after the death of the defendant,