CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH 11

result would have been precisely the same. He therefore begs
leave to report, that the complainants are now entitled to the fol-
lowing negro slaves, to wit: Ben, Joseph, Roderick, Lucy,
Beastly, Mary, and Henry, and also to the sum of $41 88, with
interest thereon from the 19th day of the current month until paid;
and their costs incurred in the prosecution of this suit

To this report the defendant excepted; first, because the auditor
had paid no regard to the valuation of the real estate, as made
under the authority of the Orphans Court, and sanctioned by that
court, and which valuation could not be set aside by the testimony
in this case; second, because a sufficient allowance had not been
made for the board, clothing, and education of the complainant
Harriet and her brother; third, because the defendant was charged
with the rents and profits of the real estate before he took charge
thereof, or had any thing to do therewith; fourth, because no
allowance was made to the defendant for the repairs and improve-
ments made by him on the farm of the complainant Harriet, and
which being necessary ought to be allowed; fifth, because sundry
credits, to which from the testimony, it appeared that the defendant
was entitled, had not been allowed to him; sixth, because the
negro girl, received by the complainant Harriet of the defendant,
was credited at too low a sum; and, if the settlement was to be
set aside, the complainant could have no right to said girl; seventh,
because the rents and profits of the complainant Harriet, were fixed
at an extravagant price; and were charged to the defendant when
they were not received by him.

18th January, 1814.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The exceptions to
the auditor's report being submitted on notes in writing, the pro-
ceedings in the suit have been considered; but the Chancellor has
not fully made up his opinion on them.

On the first exception he is not satisfied, that the valuation recog-
nized by the Orphans Court ought to be disregarded, and the value
estimated from the evidence; but if this valuation should be taken
as the rule, it may not apply to every year. On the third excep-
tion, the Chancellor is under the impression, that the defendant is
answerable as far as a claim against his wife, who might have been
obliged to account; provided any sum should appear to have been
due before his guardianship commenced. It cannot be admitted,
that settlements made by the Orphans Courts are in all eases con-
clusive; but they may frequently render it necessary to bring fur-
ther proof of credits allowed by them. But when the balance