DORSEY v. HAMMOND. 471

heirs of the deceased debtor; not even so far as to prevent the
operation of the statute of limitations.(o) Therefore these judg-
ments which have been obtained against the executor, cannot
relieve these creditors from the necessity of producing the usual
proofs of their claims. Their original causes of action, as they
stood before these judgments were rendered, must be proved as
against these heirs precisely as if no such judgments had ever been
obtained.

And generally in other respects all claims must appear upon the
face of them, prima facie, to be just and fair; and to have obtained
or had assured to them, at the instance of the creditor, payment
from no other person or fund. Unless a claim is thus authenticated,
and upon the face of it clear, it will not be allowed, even although
no objection should be made to it by any one interested. And con-
sequently it has always been considered to be the duty of the
auditor to notice, in his report, all objections of this description.
The auditor has no right certainly to moot cases to the court; or to
make any objections, such as the statute of limitations, or the like,
which can only come with propriety from a party interested, and
which, therefore, if made by the auditor alone, will be disregarded.

But, notwithstanding a claim may have been formally vouched
and reported as clear of all apparent objections, yet any party
interested, a defendant or a co-creditor, may deny its existence and
oppose its allowance altogether, in which case it must be regularly
and legally established, as upon an issue joined in a court of law.

It has been found in practice, that there are several important
advantages in sending the case at once to the auditor, and having
an account stated. The claimants are immediately apprised of
what is wanted, if any thing, to sustain their claims: those against
which there is no objection may obtain satisfaction, or at least a
dividend without further delay. The heirs and each creditor are
informed of the nature of the distribution proposed to be made.
Each claim is presented in a clear and distinct point of view. The
debatable ground is designated, its extent reduced, and the pro-
gress of the cause accelerated.

The objection, that these claims No. 3, 4, and.5, are each of
them founded on such a judgment against the executor as carries
in itself conclusive evidence of a sufficiency of personal assets to

(o) Harwood v. Rawlings, 4 H. & J. 126; Duvall v. Green, 4 H. & J. 270 Mason
v. Peter, 1 Mun. 437.