|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIMMONS v. TONGUE 353
court is now about to distribute. This great multitude of claims
are shewn to be susceptible of being placed in several classes;
and if they had been so arranged by the auditor, the subjects
would have been put into better order, and the necessary investi-
gation thus, in some respects, facilitated. The claims of the
originally suing creditors should always be placed by the auditor
first in his statement, as having been passed upon by the decree
which directed the sale, and immediately after and in connection
with all such claims as the original plaintiffs have, as in this in-
stance, indicated in their bill, that they stand liable for as sureties
And then the rest of the claims should be grouped together in
successive classes, according to their nature; as separate debts,
partnership debts, joint debts, debts due by judgment, bond,
note, &c. But this arrangement has seldom or ever been made,
and cannot be deemed necessary, or allowed to affect the interests
of the parties, however desirable it may be as a means of facili-
tating the inquiries of the Chancellor.
The claims of the originally suing creditors, so far as they have
been distinctly set forth in their bill; either as claims in their own
right, or in a representative capacity, as executors, &c. are always
considered as having been finally decided upon and allowed by the
decree directing a sale; since it is clear, that no such decree
should be passed unless it had been shewn that there was some
debt then due. And upon this ground the decree for a sale, al-
though it may be silent as to the validity of such claims, necessa-
rily establishes them to their whole amount, unless some one, or a
part of some one of them, has been rejected altogether; or ex-
pressly reserved for further directions, in common with the claims
of other creditors who may come in after the decree, (e)
This direction applies to the claim of the plaintiff Richard
Simmons, designated as No. 87, which having been tacitly decided
upon by the decree of the 7th of November, 1826, must be al-
lowed, notwithstanding the doubt intimated by the auditor.
The plaintiffs Owens and Sellman state, that they, as endorsers
of notes for the late Thomas Tongue, may be made to pay as such 5
and in that way, their claims may be largely increased. And the
plaintiff Sellman that he is liable to a considerable amount
as surety of the late Thomas Tongue, on a testamentary bond; so
that, by such liability, there is a probability of his claim being
(c) Strike's case, 1 Bland, 68; Hammond v. Hammond, 2 Bland, 359.
45 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
