150 MACCUBBIN v. MATTHEWS.

he had so retained to that amount; because, the absolute judg-
ments against him were a tacit and conclusive admission, that he
had assets sufficient to satisfy that as well as his own claim, which
could only be satisfied by retainer in whole or in due proportion
with others for which, suit might be brought. And since he made
no defence on the ground of an insufficiency of assets to satisfy his
own claim as well as that for which the suits were brought, those
absolute judgments must be considered as alike conclusive evidence
of a sufficiency of assets to satisfy both of them.

Whereupon it is Ordered, that the said petition be and the same
is hereby dismissed with costs,

See this case, under the name of Gaither & Warfield v. Welch's
Estate, reported in 3 G. & J. 259.

MACCUBBIN v. MATTHEWS.

A party may, as of course, withdraw any document, which he himself has volunta-
rily put upon file, for the purpose of having it authenticated.—Commissioners
may summon a witness to attend before them; and the court will compel him to
do so; but a commission should be issued so as to have the examination at a
reasonable distance from the residence of the witness.

THIS bill was filed on the 26th of June, 1828, by John Henry
Maccubbin against Elizabeth Matthews, William, D. Matthews,
Mary E. Matthews, John E. Matthews, Jesse Matthews and John
Hall. It appeared, that the plaintiff had sold a parcel of land to
John Matthews, the intestate of the defendant Ha/1, the late hus-
band of the defendant Elizabeth, and the father of the other defen-
dants, who were all infants; that the land described as lying within
certain specified boundaries, was estimated to contain three hun-
dred acres more or less; and was to be paid for at $6 66| cents
per acre; that upon that estimate, part of the purchase money was
paid, and a bond given for the residue; and a bond of conveyance
given by the vendor to the vendee; that afterwards a survey was
made, and the tract was found to contain five hundred and thirty
acres; that the bond given for the residue of the purchase money
had been assigned to a certain Nicholas Brice, and was not then
paid; and that the defendant Hall, as administrator, had taken
possession of the effects of the intestate. Whereupon it was