ELLICOTT v. WELCH. 249

of assets in his hands; and, under that impression, he had made a
distribution of them accordingly: that those judgments should be
revised and reformed; or, at least, that dividends of the real estate
should be paid equal in amount to the personal estate paid after
their rendition in discharge of other claims. And further, the *
petitioner Warfield alleged, that he himself was a creditor of his
intestate to a large amount. Whereupon it was prayed, that the
surplus might be applied in payment of all just claims against the
estate of the late Nicholas Welch.

9th November, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The case on this
petition having been submitted without argument, the proceedings
were read and considered.

These petitioners Gaither and Warfield presented their claim by
a petition filed on the 25th of August last, which was disposed of
by the order of the 26th of the same month; and feeling still satis-
fied with the correctness of that order, it will be only necessary
now to say why I deem the new matter with which the claim is by
this petition connected, must be deemed altogether unavailable.

The petitioner Warfield states, that the judgments were rendered
improvidently and from ignorance, on his part, of their legal effect
and operation. If ignorance of law, to this extent, were to be con-
sidered as a sufficient foundation for a Court of Equity to interfere,
there are few judgments of any court of common law, which a
Court of Chancery might not be called upon to revise and reform.
But this court can, in no case, revise or reform a judgment of a
court of common law in any respect whatever; and there are no such
special circumstances of fraud, surprise, or mistake set forth in this
petition, as can give this court jurisdiction to grant relief against
those who, as heirs, creditors or parties may have a right to avail
themselves of the effect and operation of the absolute judgments
obtained against the petitioner Warfield, as the administrator of the
late Nicholas Welch, (i) And, therefore, upon this ground, and
for the reasons given in the order of the 26th of August last, this
claim must be again rejected.

But the petitioner Warfield states, that he himself is a creditor
of his intestate. If so, it is perfectly well settled, that he might
have, at once, retained and applied of the assets, which came to
his hands, so much as was sufficient to satisfy his own claim; (j)
and having this well known legal right, it must be presumed, that

(i) Robinson v. Bell, 2 Vern. 146.—(j) 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 8, s. 19.