WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER. 197

some respects, is not so clear, or so energetic as the ancient course
of proceeding.

Whereupon it is Ordered, that the time allowed for taking tes-
timony under the order of the 21st of February last, be and the
same is hereby enlarged; provided, that the testimony so taken
be returned and filed in the chancery office, on or before the 19th
instant. And it is further Ordered, that the said objection of the
said witness; and also those of the defendant John Diffenderffer,
be and the same are hereby overruled; and the said witnesses are
hereby required to answer forthwith and fully to the said interro-
gatories propounded to them, or either of them.

Under this order the witnesses were again called before the
commissioners, and answered the interrogatories. And extracts
from the books of the Mechanics' Bank, of the account of the
defendant John Diffenderffer, were produced as required; all which
were returned by the commissioners on the 10th of June, 1829.

1th October, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, on the exceptions to the auditor's report, and
for final hearing on the decree to account, the solicitors of the par-
ties were fully heard, and the proceedings read and considered.

I take it to have been finally settled by the judgment of the
court, in the case of Rogers v. Merryman, to which the widow and
the four daughters of the late Charles Rogers, were all parties;
first, that the debts of the testator had been all properly and cor-
rectly paid by the trustee Vincent, and that a share of the surplus
left, after their payment, having been ordered to be paid to Cathe-
rine Diffenderffer, who had been a party to that suit, before her
marriage, is conclusive upon her, and those claiming under her;
because, so long as those orders of the 12th of September, and
15th of December, 1820, remain in full force, and they are not
now revisable, she, or any one claiming under her, cannot be
permitted, in any way, to question the correctness of the manner
in which the debts of Charles Rogers, deceased, were paid, which
had been so distinctly noticed, considered, and confirmed by those
judgments of the court. And in the next place, that it has been
finally determined by the judgment of this court, as indicated by
the orders of the 25th of March, 1815; the 8th of July, 1816, and
the 18th of October, 1819, that this defendant, John Diffenderffer,
26 v. 2