|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST v. MACKALL. 497
exceptions heretofore filed against the claims of The Bank of the
United States. And also except to so much of the auditor's
report as in any manner conflicts with their aforesaid exceptions.
They except to the auditor's account A. between the administrator
de bonis non, and the estate of the deceased, for all and every the
reasons which are set forth and assigned as objections to said ac-
count in the auditor's report; except, that objection of the auditor
against the allowance for $1, 005, for the value of negroes mort-
gaged, the mortgage having been produced and admitted. They
also except to so much of the accounts A. and B. of the adminis-
trator de bonis non, as stated by the auditor, as make allowances
to him for moneys paid for county taxes; for county taxes remain-
ing due, and for the future support of the negroes.
The creditors of the deceased, reported by the auditor as claim-
ants No. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 24, at the same
time, prayed leave to insist upon all the exceptions taken by the
plaintiffs to the reports of the auditor, and to have the same benefit
thereof as if they were again specially repeated. And, on the
same day, The Bank of the United States excepted to all four of
the claims stated by the auditor in this his last report; because
they are barred by the statute of limitations; because No. 34 is
founded on a single bill by the administrator de bonis non, and
can be no evidence of a claim against the deceased; and because
there is no evidence to support claim No. 37.
Instead of taking testimony under the order of the 10th of No-
vember, the parties, by agreements filed, made what they deemed
sufficient admissions of the authenticity of the vouchers of some of
the contested claims, so as to bring the case before the court.
14th February, 1832, —BLAND, Chancellor, —This case standing
ready for hearing and further directions on the several reports of
the auditor, and the exceptions thereto, and the solicitors of the
parties having been heard, the proceedings were read and con-
sidered.
The court is now called on to have the assets of this deceased
debtor so distributed as to produce the greatest amount of satisfac-
tion to his several creditors; all of whose claims have been either
expressly admitted, or left unopposed by his legal representatives.
But some of these creditors, by relying on the statute of limitations
and other exceptions against their rival and co-creditors, have en-
deavoured to protect their own satisfaction from being lessened, by
an application of any part of the assets to the discharge of the
63 v. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
