174 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.

After which, the trustee filed an account, on oath, with vouchers,
on which the auditor reported two statements; one showing the
balance in the trustee's hands, due to the legal representatives of
Charles Rogers, viz: $2,889 47; and the other showing the
balance due to the representatives of Sarah Rogers, viz: $227 83
from from the third part of the rents.

12th September, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—It is Ordered, that
the said report and statements be confirmed; but before any appli-
cation of the balance can be made, it is necessary for the court to
be informed of the situation of the heirs, to whom their proportions
ought to be paid, and their separate receipts, taken according to the
will; although it is stated by the trustee, that, they conceive, they
have nothing to do with the business. The trustee is directed to
report to the chancellor the names, situation, and places of resi-
dence of the heirs; and any further knowledge which he may have
obtained as to the debts, and the means of paying them; and the
object, and present situation of the suit mentioned by him.

The trustee Vincent reported, in obedience to this order, that the
testator Charles Rogers left, at the time of his death, the following
children and devisees, namely, Sarah wife of Henry E. Bailey,
Catharine wife of John Diffenderffer, who were then living; Ann
wife of Alexander Martin, who died without issue about the 4th of
May, 1807, after having by will given a legacy to her husband's
mother, and devised her estate to her husband's daughter, who
then resided in Massachusetts; and Mary the wife of George Lee,
who by her will devised her estate to her husband, who was then
living in Baltimore, died leaving no child. That Sarah the widow
of the testator was then dead, after having by will bequeathed
several legacies; but what debts she owed, or what estate she left,
except as before reported, this trustee could not say. That the
debts of Charles Rogers had been all paid, that came to the
trustee's knowledge; except a small account in settling of which
there had been some little difficulty, but of small consequence.
That the devisees Bailey and wife, and Diffenderffer and wife in-
stituted a suit in Baltimore county court claiming the whole estate,
after the death of Ann Martin and Mary Lee as vested in them,
under the will of Charles Rogers; and that suit was determined
by said court in favor of Mrs. Bailey and Mrs. Diffenderffer by the
opinion of the court, that the estate of said Rogers vested in them