|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 SIMMONS v. TONGUE.
Should be postponed to the of his separate creditors. And
that claim No. 135 was for & balance due to the firm of Tongue &
McPherson; it was not proved. The auditor also reported, that
James Murray had filed an assignment for the sum of $40, part of
the dividends on claims No. 1 and 2. And that since the state-
ment of these accounts an additional claim had been filed and
stated as No. 137. As the dividend on it was small, $6 65, the
auditor suggested that it should be paid out of the interest re-
ceived, or to be received by the trustee.
16th July, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the fore-
going statement of the auditor, as to the commissions, expenses,
and costs of this suit alone, as therein stated, be confirmed; and
the trustee is directed to apply the proceeds accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After which, on the 15th of March, 1831, the auditor filed
another report, in which he said, that at the instance of the soli-
citor of the complainants he had again examined the proceedings.
That fourteen additional claims had been filed, which were stated
and numbered from 138 to 151 inclusive. From the copy of the
list of debts due to Thomas Tongue, deceased, mentioned in the
report of the 30th of April, 1829, it appeared, that there were ac-
counts in bar of claims No. 138, 139, 140, 141, and 147, That
claim No. 143 was on a note of Tongue & McPherson, and should
be postponed to the separate creditors of Tongue. That the claim
No. 21 of John Collinson as administrator de bonis non of Thomas
Tongue, senior, had been withdrawn, and in lieu thereof claims
had been filed by John Collinson and Ann his wife, Harriet
Waters, and Elizabeth Allen, as legatees of said Tongue, which
were stated and numbered 152, 153, and 154. But from the
aforesaid copy of the list of debts due to the deceased, it appeared
that there were accounts in bar of claims No. 153 and 154.
That claim No. 7 had been withdrawn, and another claim filed,
which was stated as No. 155, and is correctly proved. That the
account in bar of claim No. 2 was allowed and the objection
thereto removed. That claim No. 4 was not proved. The proof
offered was a paper purporting to be a copy of a bill obligatory,
alleged to have been executed by the deceased, accompanied by
the affidavit of the claimant, that the original obligation was lost.
It was not usual to require proof of the sealing and delivery of
a bill or bond where the bond itself was filed, and was subject
to inspection. But in the absence of the original, the auditor was
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
