HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 381

and of being in fact usurious; but it is not so. (i) Compound
interest is the annual or periodical conversion of interest into prin-

sion that John A. Frazier was entitled to half the purchase money, he had accord-
ingly paid him that amount, and obtained his receipt; whereupon, he prayed that he
might be allowed a credit for so much upon his bond.

After which, and upon all the foregoing matters, the case was again brought be-
fore the Chancellor for further and general directions.

23d May, 1800.—HANSON, Chancellor.—Let the auditor, at the request of the
purchaser, state the proportion of each creditor, reserving the amount of claims not
established. The Chancellor, on application, at any time after the 10th of July next,
will decide on any claim against the estate of Alexander Frazier, which has not yet
been passed; provided a copy of this order be inserted in the Maryland Gazette three
times before the 15th of June next. Depositions taken before a single magistrate will
be received as evidence of any of the claims aforesaid. The rules prescribed by the
Orphans Court, with respect to claims against deceased persons, are adopted in the
Chancery Court; claims passed by an Orphans Court are generally passed by the
Chancellor, unless the same are disputed.

In obedience to this order, the auditor, on the 4th of November, 1800, reported
that he had stated the claims exhibited against the estate of Alexander Frazier, de-
ceased, and the dividend on each claim, amounting to £1,405 12s. 3d. the one-half
of the purchase money due them on the 12th day of April, 1796; that No. 11 was
not proved; No. 12 was a copy of receipts, and not proved, only as being true copies
of the receipts; No. 13 was not proved; No. 14 was a note to Richard Ward, proved
by Zachariah Ward, who said he had not received any part, but had not said that he
was either the executor or administrator; and No. 16 was proved, with an exception
to allow any account against it on the deceased's books. Upon which the case was
again submitted to the Chancellor.

2d December, 1800.—HANSON, Chancellor.—The Chancellor has examined the
auditor's last statement of claims, and the dividends by him struck. He is of opinion
that the auditor has done right in rejecting claims Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. But
as there is a probability, that the said claims, or some of them, may be hereafter es-
tablished, he will not absolutely dismiss them without notice to the claimants to pro-
duce further vouchers.

Ordered, therefore, that the Chancellor will, on application of any person con-
cerned, proceed immediately to decide on any of the following claims against the
estate of the said Alexander Frazier, viz. William Campbell's, Robert Ward's execu-
tor, Walter Roe's, Richard Ward's, and Robert McCoy's; provided it shall be proved
to his satisfaction, if a copy of this order hath been served on the claimant fifteen
days before such application.

Ordered, further, that of the money to arise from the sale of the said Frazier's
real estate, there be paid, agreeably to the auditor's statement, as follows:

To the trustees, for commissions, ....	£90	0s,	0d.
For costs of suit as taxed, .....	20	8	B
To the auditor, for fees, .....	8	15	0
John A. Frazier's representatives, ....	1,405	12	3
James Pattison's representative, ....	1,067	19	5 1/2
Richard Frazier, ......	17	8	0

(t) Chambers v. Goldwin, 9 Ves. 271; May, 1781, ch. 17, s, 2 and 3.
49 v.2