470 DORSEY v. HAMMOND.

materials on which a decree or final disposition of the case may be
made; and to report the result of his examinations, subject to all
exceptions of the parties, and to the further order of the Chancel-
lor. On a consideration of this case it does not appear, that the
auditor has in any respect departed from the proper line of his
duty.(j)

According to the long established practice in creditors' suits
it has been most usual, and particularly so of late years, to
order the case to the auditor, or rather for the trustee or a party
interested to take it to him, after the time allowed to other cre-
ditors to exhibit their claims has elapsed, and have an account
stated and reported. It is true, that the court may be called
upon, in the first instance, to decide upon all or any one of the
claims, which have been exhibited. This course is now, how-
ever, rarely or never taken, unless when there is supposed to
exist some very unusual difficulty. When the case goes to the
auditor, without any previous instructions from the court, he admits
into his account every claim that has been filed and properly
authenticated, with all others which there is any plausible reason
to believe may be, in any way, sustained by proof and allowed.(k)

In making distribution of the proceeds of a deceased debtor's
real estate among his creditors, this court is directed by an act of
assembly,(l) (which in this respect is not at all affected by the tes-
tamentary system,)(m) to pay away the proceeds of the really in the
same order, that is to be observed by an executor or administrator
in making payments out of the personalty.

It has always been the practice in this court to require all claims
to be proved before they are allowed either for the whole or admitted
to a dividend, in the same manner as they would be required to be
authenticated in order to be passed by an Orphans Court; and
therefore no claim, coming in under a creditors' bill, will be passed
or allowed, which could not, according to law, be passed and
allowed against the personal estate by an Orphans Court. This
was the practice long before the passage of the general testamen-
tary act ;(n) and has continued to be so ever since.

It has also been always a settled rule of this court, and is one
which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that a judgment
against an executor or administrator is of no avail against the

(j) Le Sage v. Coussmaker, 1 Esp. Rep. 187; Field v. Holland, 6 Cran. 21.
(k) Field v. Holland, 6 Cran. 26.—(l) 1785, ch. 80, s. 7.—(m) 1798, ch.101.—(n) 1798,
ch. 101.