176 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER,

the will of the late Charles Rogers, that they are not to receive, or
entitled to any, till his debts were paid, which was completed on
the 9th April, 1808.'

25th March, 1815.—KILTY, Chancellor.—On the application of

John Diffenderffer, who married one of the heirs, and on the resig-

nation of Samuel Vincent the trustee, the chancellor has examined

the former proceedings. Before any further order can be made it

will be necessary for him to be furnished with a transcript of the

proceedings in the suit by Mrs. Bailey and Mrs. Diffenderffer which

were carried to the Court of Appeals as mentioned in the report of

Samuel Vincent. ___________

This case having been again brought before the court, and some
further explanations given as to the particulars mentioned in the
last report of the trustee Vincent.

8th July, 1817.—KILTY, Chancellor.—It being represented, that
there is an error in the report, as to the suits in the Court of Appeals
mentioned in the order of March 25th, 1815, the auditor may pro-
ceed to examine the reports and vouchers, without waiting for the
transcript, and report thereon, giving notice to the former and
present trustee. ___________

In obedience to this order the auditor, on the 23d of December,
1818, stated and reported several accounts as required, for perform-
ing which service, his legal fees amounted to $84. After which,
the auditor, by his petition, stated, that the former trustee Vincent,
and John Diffenderffer, who had been recognized by the court as
trustee in the room of Vincent, although no order for his appoint-
ment appeared among the papers, had both of them neglected and
refused to pay his fees, although Diffenderffer had always had in
his hands funds of the estate to a large amount. Whereupon the
auditor prayed, that Diffenderffer might be ordered to pay, &c.

18th October, 1819.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Ordered, that John
Diffenderffer pay to the Auditor the sum of $84, on or before the
10th day of November next, or shew cause to the contrary; pro-
vided, that a copy of the petition and of this order be served on him
before the 28th instant.

These are all the proceedings which appear to have been had in
the case of Rogers v. Merryman, when Winder and wife instituted
this suit against John Diffenderffer and others.

These plaintiffs, Winder and wife, by their bill, stated that
Charles Rogers, after having made his will, as before set forth, died,