590 BROWN v. WALLACE.

and that he being the last purchaser, the deficiency all fell on him,
as he was to take the residue. On which petition the trustee Wal-
lace certified as follows, that on the day of sale he made it known,
'that, if upon an accurate survey it should be found, that the tract
called Convenience did not contain fifty-six acres, that the defi-
ciency should be deducted from the last lot of said tract sold, con-
taining six acres, and the purchaser credited with the price. Mr,
William Cole was the purchaser, and the price per acre will appear
by reference had to my report. The said tract has been since sur-
veyed by Mr. Osborn, who certifies, that It contains only fifty-four
acres, which I believe to be correct.'

22d February, 1814.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the
trustee credit the principal of the petitioner's bond with the price
of two acres of lot No. 6, viz. $40.

The auditor in a report bearing date on the 17th of June, 1814,
said, that he had, at the request of the said Abraham Jarrett, stated
an account between the estate of the said William Mitchell, de-
ceased, and the heirs at law of James Mitchell, deceased, in which
the intestate William's estate was charged with the valuation of
the intestate James' estate. William's estate was then credited by
one-sixth of that sum as the portion of Martin, the eldest heir of
the intestate James, and also by one-twelfth of that sum, being
the one-half of the portion of Bennet, another heir of the intestate
James, which it was stated, in the defendant Parker Mitchell's an-
swer, were purchased by the intestate William in his life-time; but
whether those portions had been paid for, did not appear; there
being no evidence upon the subject. The auditor further said,
that he had then apportioned the balance, $7,372 50, due from
the estate of the intestate William, to Harriet Mitchell, one-sixth;
to James and Aquila Mitchell, the complainants, one-sixth each;
and to Parker Mitchell, who alleged in his answer, that he was
the purchaser of Kent Mitchell's portion, and the remaining half of
Bennet MitchelVs portion, their shares accordingly; but that there
was no proof of the purchase or payment for those portions. That
all these claims so ascertained against the estate of the intestate
William, including interest to the day of the trustee's sale,
amounted to $8,321 13. The auditor further reported, that Mar-
tin Mitchell, Bennet Mitchell, and Kent Mitchell, whose interests
seemed to be materially affected by these proceedings, were not
parties; and, therefore, respectfully submitted, whether they ought