WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER, 175

under his will, upon the death of Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Lee.
Such this trustee has understood to be the nature of the said action
and the judgment of the court; from which an appeal was made,
and the record now remains in the Court of Appeals for trial there.
That the money of the estate, in this trustee's hands, he is and
has been ready to pay over as his Honor shall direct, as well the
part audited to the widow, as that to the heirs; who are satisfied
on that subject, waiting only for a decision in the Court of Appeals,
That the balance due Sarah Rogers, at her death, this trustee has
been ready and willing to pay to the executors, and would have
paid; but the heirs, although not disputing the account, conceived
the money due on that account ought not to be paid until the deter-
mination of the Court of Appeals.

15th December, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Since the order of
the 12th of September last a report has been made by the trustee
of the matters directed therein; by which it appears, that the debts
of Charles Rogers have been paid; except an account of small
consequence; and the executors of Sarah Rogers have informed
the court, that they wait for the sanction of the account rendered
by the trustee. On this part of the case the trustee is authorized
and directed to pay to the said executors of Sarah Rogers the sum
reported due to her representatives, being $227 83. As to the
balance of $2,889 47 due to the heirs, the trustee is authorized
and directed to pay one-fourth part thereof to Sarah Bailey, and to
take her separate receipt therefor, according to the will of Charles
Rogers; and one-fourth part to Catharine Diffenderffer, taking her
separate receipt therefor. For the two other fourth parts a further
order will be given on the determination of the appeal in the suit
mentioned in the report.

Some years after which, the trustee Vincent, in a letter, dated on
the 23d of November, 1814, addressed to the chancellor, says, ' I
inform you of my resignation of the trust in the estate of the late
Charles Rogers, and have given it into the hands of Mr. John Dif-
fenderffer one of the heirs at law.' There does not appear to have
been any order passed upon this resignation; but on an application,
dated on the 2Oth of December following, made by John Diffen-
derffer, in which, among other things, he says, c on examining the
account of Mr. Samuel Vincent, trustee of the late Charles Rogers'
estate, I find, that he has charged a considerable sum of money
to Sarah Bailey, Ann Martin, and Mary Lee; it appears to me, by