WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON. 515

44, originated after the death of the deceased, and ought not to be
allowed; and in conclusion said, that he understood a distribution
of personal estate had been made by the deceased's administrator;
but no dividends were credited on George and John Barber's
claim, No. 1; John W. Duvall's, No. 5, Charles T. Flusser's,
No. 7; Henry Hammond's, No. 8; A. & J. Miller's, No. 13, 14,
35 and 44; Joseph Phelps', No. 16; John Randall & Son's, No.
27; C. Salmon's, No. 32; George Shaw's, No. 33; Anderson
Warfield's, No. 37; George Wells', Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 42; or
Henry Wilmot's, No. 43. Upon this report of the auditor, the
case was submitted, as to all such matters as were not con-
troverted.

15th May, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the re-
port of the auditor be, and the same is hereby ratified and con-
firmed; and the trustee is directed to apply the proceeds accord-
ingly. But all claims to which any objections whatever have
been made, as therein mentioned, are hereby reserved until further
order.

On the 18th May, 1830, the claimant, James Deale, excepted
to this report; first, because it did not appear from any part of the
proceedings, that Beale M. Worthington was surety for William
Warfield; and if Worthington was a surety, it was not necessary
to prove the insolvency of Warfield; and second, because the affi-
davits of Duvall and Welch, afford sufficient evidence of such
insolvency. And on the 20th of May, 1830, The Farmers' Bank
of Maryland, a creditor, also excepted to this report; first, be-
cause there was no evidence that Beale M. Worthington was surety
on the notes which are the foundations of said claims; and did
not receive a valuable consideration thereof; and second, because
if he was, the proof was sufficient of the insolvency of the other
parties. And on the same day, George Wells, a creditor, in like
manner excepted; first, because if the objections to claims Nos. 3,
18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 26 be valid, the estate would be released
from the said endorsements; and therefore, the auditor's reasons
for rejecting the exceptant's claims would cease; and second,
because if the objections to Nos. 3, 18, 19, 20, &c, should be
over-ruled, it does not appear that this claimant had notice at the
time of the assignment, of said endorsements.

10th June, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
for hearing, on the exceptions to the auditor's report, the solici-