LATIMER v. HANSON. 55

" The trustee further represents, that he has made no interest from
the funds in his hands, nor derived any pecuniary advantage from
them, but has always been ready to bring them into court when
required by the Chancellor to do so, and should have brought the
whole into court under the Chancellor's order of the 17th March last,
but that the auditor's statement, ascertaining the exact amount to be
brought in, had not been made, and he is ready to bring in the
residue.

" The trustee further states, that the only dispute, that he knows
of, which rendered it doubtful whether the heirs or devisees of said
Wallace or his creditors should receive the said funds, was a suit
in this court by Charles W. Hanson executor of Wallace, against
John Murray, executor of John Muir, to which the trustee refers, in
which the auditor's report was made on the 4th of July 1821, and
was understood to be acquiesced in? and the decree passed on the
23d of February 1824; and which case the trustee was in daily
expectation of being decided a considerable time before; and he
believes that was the suit which induced the petitioners to require
the investment.

" The trustee further states, that not having succeeded in his en-
deavours to invest the said funds, and the petitioners and their coun-
sel being acquainted with the progress of the said suit of Hanson
v. Murray, and often attending the Chancery Court, and not hav-
ing called upon him to report, he had every reason to believe, that
they were satisfied, that the funds should remain as they were. The
trustee further states, that even if he were chargeable with interest
in this case it would be going a great length to charge him from
the moment the order to invest was made, which the auditor, at
the instance of the petitioner's solicitor, has done."

On the 18th of August 1825, Sarah H. Smith, with James Smith
and Edward T. Bond, filed an amended petition, giving a more
particular account of the nature of the claim and judgment mention-
ed in her petition of the 9th of August 1819, and stating that she
had assigned it to the two other petitioners; that the personal
estate of the late Charles Wallace was totally insufficient to pay his
debts; and praying that their claim might be paid out of the pro-
ceeds of the sale of his real estate now in this court; and that
notice might be given to the heirs, devisees, and legatees. To
this petition Charles W. Hanson, one of the devisees, filed his
answer, on the 17th of November 1825, in which he says, that he
does not know of or admit the said judgment, or the correctness