40 STRIKE'S CASE.

the course has been for the creditors to come in by filing the vouch-
ers of their claims, in the Chanceiy office; and this may be
regarded as the present well established practice of this court. In
this form a creditor may come in at any time before a distribution
of the proceeds of the sale has been actually made; and before
a. final audit has been ordered and ratified; but if the auditor had
previously made a statement, the cost of the restatement must be
borne exclusively by such new applicant, (e)

respective claims, with the vouchers thereof, on or before the 16th day of August
next, to the intent, that there may be ascertained the sum necessary to be raised by a
sale of the real estate of the deceased for the payment of Ms just debts.

After which the case came on for a final hearing.

4th January, 1803.—HANSON, Chancellor.—The complainants' claim against the
said Parrott Clarke, deceased, being established to the satisfaction of the Chancellor;
and it appearing, that the personal estate of the said Parrott Clarke is insufficient for
the payment of his debts—decreed, that the lands be sold, &c.

A sale of the real estate was made, reported, and finally ratified accordingly. A
commission had been issued in the usual form, to appoint a guardian to the infant
defendants, and such a guardian had been appointed accordingly, who answered for
them.

23d August, 1803.—HANSON, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the principal money,
arising from the sale of the estate of Parrott Clarke, deceased, be applied agreeably
to the auditor's statement of the 12th instant; and, that whatever interest is paid by
the purchaser shall be divided, in due proportion, amongst the persons entitled to the
principal. But, inasmuch as the Chancellor knows not whether the heirs of said
Clarke are of years of discretion, or have a guardian to their persons and estate, the
balance of £ 143 2s. ld.s must be subject to the Chancellor's future order.

(e) Angell v. Haddon, 1 Mad. Rep. 523; 2 Fow. Ex. Pra. 254; Davies v. Stewart,
per Johnson, Chancellor, 17th February, 1823.

O'BRIAN v. BENNET.—This bill was filed by O'Brian and wife on the 18th of
June, 1800; by which it appears, that the defendant Pouder, being seized in fee
simple of a lot of ground in Baltimore, sold it to Francis Caskey for £687 l0s., and
gave Caskey Ms bond to convey it to him when he paid the whole purchase money;
that Caskey paid £337 10s. in part; that afterwards he mortgaged his interest for a
certain sum of money to the defendant Patrick Bennet; after which Caskey devised
his interest to Martha, one of the plaintiffs; and died. And then the defendant Pouder
conveyed all his right to the defendant Bennet—that Bennet holds possession and
refuses to convey, or to suffer the plaintiffs to redeem. Prayer for general relief, &c.

On the 27th January, 1802, a decree was passed, by consent, for a sale in the com-
mon form. The amount due Bennet, was also agreed by writing, dated 8th October,
1801. A sale was made and reported accordingly, which, by an order of the 19th of
May, 1802, was at once absolutely ratified, the persons concerned having expressed
their approbation thereof—that is, the plaintiffs and defendants.

The property having sold for more than enough to satisfy the claims of the defend-
ants, the plaintiff Charles O'Brian, by his petition, stated, that he having been ap-
pointed the executor of Charles Caskey, as set forth in the biil, bad obtained letters
testamentary; that the personal estate of Caskey was exhausted; that he had been