WELCH v. STEWART. 37

I WELCH ^ STEWART.

In a creditor's suit, the decree for a sale establishes the plaintiff's claim; unless it
be otherwise declared; except as regards a fraud not put in issue and decided
on by such decree. A plaintiff cannot be permitted to split up and multiply his
causes of action; and therefore, if he knowingly withholds a part of his claim
until after the decree for a sale, it will be rejected; but without prejudice. In a
creditor's suit the statute of limitations continues to run against a creditor who
comes in, before or under the decree, until he files his petition or the voucher of
his claim; but no one can rely on the statute against a claim, after any act done,
or sanctioned by him, which implies an abandonment of such a defence, or that
the claim is to be met upon its merits.

THIS bill was filed on the 2d of August, 1827, by Robert Welch,
of Ben. and others, as creditors of David Stewart) deceased,
against Henry H. Stewart and others, the administrator, heirs and
legal representatives of the late David Stewart. The bill sets
forth, that the late David Stewart was indebted to .several persons
in the manner described, to which claims the plaintiff Welch had
become entitled; that the deceased debtor had, in his life time,
conveyed certain property in trust for the benefit of the creditors
named in the deed of trust, some of which claims are those which
have been assigned to the plaintiff Welch; that the late David
Stewart died siezed and possessed of other property, not so spe-
cially appropriated; and that his whole estate, both real and per-
sonal, was insufficient to pay his debts. The heirs, administrator
and trustee, who were all made defendants, by their answers, ad-
mitted the truth of the allegations of the bill. Whereupon it was
DECREED, that the estate be sold; that notice be given to the cre-
ditors of the deceased to come in; and that the administrator
account. The property was accordingly sold. After which, on
the 4th of December, 1828, Evans and others, filed their petition,
stating that they also were creditors of the deceased; and that
they objected to the allowance of certain claims of the plaintiff
Welch.

The auditor, on the 4th of February, 1829, reported a state-
ment of the claims of the plaintiffs, and others who had cope in
as creditors of the deceased. Evans and others
account allowing the plaintiff Welch's claims. Nos. 1,
because they had not been established by any evidence, as against
them and others, the creditors of the late David Stewart; and for
these reasons they, in like manner, objected to the allowance of the
6 v.2