HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 393

the aforesaid sum of money with interest, as herein before order-
ed to be brought in by him, or any part thereof, the said trustee,
Thomas S. Alexander, be, and he is hereby authorized and empow-
ered to make sale of the said parcel of land called Abington, upon
the terms, and in the manner, and for the purposes herein before
prescribed.

Robert Welch, of Ben. and Isaac Holland, administrators of Bar-
rett, by their petition stated, that they had recovered a judgment
against the defendant Elizabeth, as executrix, upon which there
was due $395 05, to secure the payment of which a judgment ob-
tained against Charles Ridgely, by the executors of this testator,
was, in October, 1828, entered for the use of the petitioner Welch;
that since that time the amount of this last mentioned judgment
had been collected by these executors and brought into this court.
Whereupon the petitioners prayed, that the amount due on their
judgment might be ordered to be paid to them out of the moneys
so brought in.

25th February, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The judgment
against Charles Ridgely, was assets in the hands of the executors,
and as such could not be applied exclusively by them to the satis-
faction of any one of the creditors of their testator, after the decree
to account in this case; but it appears that the use was entered, in
this instance, some time after that decree; therefore, it is Ordered,
that the aforegoing petition be, and the same is hereby dismissed,
with costs.

The trustee, Alexander, reported, that being under an impres-
sion that the infant defendant Philip H. Mewbern, had no means
of raising the sum which he had been ordered by the decree to pay;
and, at the instance of his guardian, he had sold a part of his per-
sonal estate, which the trustee submitted to the consideration of the
court. After a publication of the usual order nisi, this sale was
finally ratified. The amount which some of the other parties were
ordered to contribute not having been brought in as ordered, the
trustee, Alexander, further reported, that he had made sale of a part
of the property devised to the plaintiff John and his children; of a
part of that devised to the late plaintiff Philip and his children;
and of that parcel of land described in the decree as the residue of
the tract yet undisposed of by the executors. And he subsequent-
ly reported, that he had sold a part of the real estate devised to the