BROWN v. WALLACE. 591

not, in some shape, to have notice of the complainants' applica-
tion and the allegations of the defendants.

22d June, 1815.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the claims
against the said estate, which are now, or may be exhibited, be
decided on during the sittings of the ensuing July term, on appli-
cation. The trustee is desired to have a copy of this order pub-
lished three weeks in the American, and to forward a certificate of
its publication, and the expense, which will be allowed.

A copy of this order having been published as required; the
auditor, by a report dated on the 27th of February, 1816, said,
that he had stated an account between the estate of William
Mitchell, deceased, and the trustee, in which the proceeds of the
estate were first applied to the payment of the trustee's allowance
for commission and expenses, the costs in this court, and the seve-
ral claims as heretofore stated and reported; and the balance was
equally divided between the heirs at law, of the said William
Mitchell.

29th February j 1816.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Notice having been
given, as directed by the order of 22d June, 1815, and no applica-
tion having been made in support of the objections suggested in
the auditor's first report; and the auditor having appropriated the
proceeds by this statement and report; the same are confirmed,
and the proceeds are directed to be applied accordingly, with in-
terest on the commission and dividends, in proportion as it has
been or may be received, (b)

No further proceedings appear to have been had in this case by
any of the parties.

The first of these cases of Brown against Wallace, was insti-
tuted by a bill filed in Harford County Court, on the 8th of May,
1818, by Freeborn Brown and William Brown, against James Wal-
lace. This bill stated, that the plaintiff Freeborn, purchased the
lands of the defendant, as mentioned in his report, in the before
mentioned case of Mitchell against Mitchell, in the High Court of
Chancery, in pursuance of the decree in that case, and of the writ-
ten authority of the 29th of April, 1812; that the plaintiff Free-
born, under a belief that the land so purchased by him, did contain
the number of acres as stated, gave his bond, with the plaintiff

(6) Waite v. Temple, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 162.