332 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.

was stayed until the infant attained full age; (p) which privilege
had been, by our law, extended to all infants who claimed by pur-

and B. appear to have been settled by the Orphans Court, where he has been al-
lowed a commission on $50,852 27, amounting to $5,085 84. That exhibit C, is an
account wherein he is charged with additional sums received, amounting to $4,427
67; and he charges the estate with a dividend paid $ 18 41; and the sum of $ 105 37
for disbursements for which he has produced receipts; except for the two first items
amounting to $9 37; and it is to be observed, that out of the sums contained in this
account, there has not been any commission allowed the said executor, &c.

To this report of the auditor the plaintiff excepted, impeaching the correctness
and validity of the claims of several creditors. And they also excepted to the ac-
count of the defendant Carey, the executor; because he had been allowed a com-
mission of ten per cent, on the payment of debts due from the said estate, which
amounted to $5,085 84; and yet the auditor had given him credit for the following
sums of money, to which he was not entitled either in law or equity. The sum of
$17 30 paid for drayage and postage. The sum of $176 paid James Winchester as
a fee. The sum of $5 paid Yundt & Brown for advertisement. The sum of $8 37
paid for copies. $90 paid John Purviance as a fee; and $6 paid sundry printers.

On the 3d of March, 1808, the defendants Hollingsworth and wife, by their pe-
tition, objected to this report of the auditor; because, by one statement, he had allowed
interest on interest, from the 15th of May, 1804, to this time. That, by another
statement, it appeared that the deficiency for payment of debts was only f 2,287 99.
That there appeared to be a balance in the hands of the defendant Carey, of $4,491
83, which was more than sufficient to pay the deficiency, as shewn by either state-
ment. Whereupon it was prayed that the defendant Carey, might be directed to
bring into court, or pay into the hands of the trustee appointed to make sale of the
real estate, under the decree of the 30th of December, 1803, the sum of $3,871, which
would be sufficient to meet any deficiency; and that the balance of money and pro-
petty in the hands of the defendant Carey, might be paid over to the defendant
Goodwin, the administratrix, who was also the trustee, to whom all the property of
the defendant Rachel, had been conveyed in trust for her benefit.

3d March, 1808.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The Chancellor has taken up the above
exceptions, on the motion of the counsel for Hollingsworth and wife, James Carey
being in court, and apprised thereof. He is of opinion that the sum of $176 and
$90 ought not to have been allowed in the manner they are charged by the Orphans
Court. By the former law the court might have allowed five per cent, on the debts
collected, so as to cover all extra expenses; but this was discretionary. For the defence
of suits, and even the legal costs, could not be allowed without a certificate from
the court; and the only mode seemed to be a contribution of the persons interested,
for extra expenses. Considering the amount of the commission, in addition to these
reasons, the auditor is directed to strike out these charges, retaining the others herein
excepted to, and to state the balance accordingly.

With regard to the petition of Hollingsworth and wife, it does not appear to be
conformable to the decree to order the money to be paid to the trustee, by James
Carey. But he is directed to pay into this court, that is, to the register, at present,
the sum of $3,871, part of the balance in his hands, subject to the further order of

(p) Co. Litt. 290; Arth v. Cotton, Cas. Tem. Talb. 198; Chaplin v. Chaplin,
3 P. Will. 368.