STRIKE'S CASE

account between the estate of John Rogers and the trustees, apply-
ing therein the proceeds of sale, to the payment of the trustees'
commission and expenses; the complainants1 costs in Baltimore
County Court; the costs of this audit, and the fees allowed to
H. W. Rogers and H. M. Murray; and the balance of the said pro-
ceeds, then remaining, to the payment of part of the complainants'
claim allowed. By this account, the complainants' claim, exclusive
of the allowance to their solicitors, amounts to - - $8657 81
Proceeds of sale applicable to the payment thereof - 2750 80
Leaving a balance due the complainants of - - - $5907 01
as of the day of the trustees' sale. He has also stated an account
between Strike and the estate of John Rogers, in which he has
charged Strike with the full value of the rents and profits of the
property conveyed to him by Rogers, rejecting entirely Strikes
claim for advances in payment of taxes, ground-rents, &c. and has
also charged him with interest thereon up to the day of the trustees'
sale. This account makes Strike indebted in the sum of $6559 33,
with further interest on $4967 63 from the day of sale; an amount
more than sufficient to discharge the balance of the complainants'
claim unprovided for by the account between the estate of John
Rogers and the trustees.

To this report the defendant, Strike, excepted, 1st, for, that the
auditor has rejected entirely the claim of the defendant, Strike.

2d. Because Strike claims the whole proceeds of the said sales
of the said property, mentioned in the trustees' report, statement
and proceedings, in preference to all the other claims in the said
cause; and will contend that he is so entitled.

3d. Because the auditor has charged the defendant, Strike, with
the full value of the rents and profits of the properly conveyed to
him by Rogers, rejecting entirely Strike's claim; and because the
mid rente are charged higher than is warranted in the proof of the
cause.

4th. Because the auditor should have allowed the defendant,
Strike, his advances in payment of taxes, ground-rent, and the
sum assessed for the extension of Pratt-street; which he has not
done.

5th. Because the auditor should have allowed the defendant,
Strike, for all permanent and necessary improvements, kid out and
expended, and created on said lots; which he has not done.

6th. Because the auditor has charged the defendant, Strike, with
interest on the rents and profits of said property to tie day of the