TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN. 45

Upon the whole, I am of opinion, that the opposition to this
claim of Joseph N. Stockett as administrator is altogether untena-
ble; and that therefore it must be allowed to take its stand as one
of the preferred claims provided for by the deed of trust.

The claims of Saunders' representatives, and all others not now
authenticated, or admitted according to the course of the court,
must be altogether rejected.

Whereupon it is Ordered, that this case be, and the same is
hereby referred to the auditor, with directions to state an account
accordingly.

In obedience to these orders the auditor made a report, which
was confirmed on the 14th of August, 1829.

TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.

A plaintiff must state in his bill such facts as are necessary to entitle him to relief;
and also shew why he may ask that relief of a Court of Equity. Where the
case set forth in the bill is such as to entitle the plaintiff to relief, the court may
have further inquiries made by the auditor, so as to adapt the relief to the peculiar
nature of the case. Where an infant takes as devisee, it is not necessary to charge
in the bill that he received the rents and profits; because it is the duty of his
guardian to take care of his estate. This court has jurisdiction to decree an ac-
count of an annual sum charged upon land. The office, powers, and duties of
masters in chancery in England; and of the auditor of this court. Testimony
may be taken under an order before a justice of the peace. The probate of a
will, in relation to real estate, considered as prima fade evidence. A decree
against infants for the payment of money.

After which the case was again called up for hearing upon the exceptions.

12th October, 1803.—HANSON, Chancellor.—The Chancellor having appointed this
day for deciding on the claims of Benjamin Oden, and of Stephen West's executrix
against the estate of Benjamin Brookes deceased, and the counsel on each side
having submitted the questions without argument, the Chancellor proceeded to
examine the papers and vouchers relative to the said claim.

There appears no reason wherefore the Chancellor should differ from the auditor
relative to West's claim. It is therefore wholly rejected. As to the claim of Oden,
nothing appears wanted except his affidavit. The opposite counsel, however, Mr,
William Kilty, being in court, and expressing his approbation of and assent to the
said claim; it is allowed to be good. Let the auditor of this court make a statement
accordingly of the money reserved on account of the rejected claims.

The auditor afterwards made and reported a statement accordingly, shewing a
surplus to be paid to the heirs of Benjamin Brookes, which statement was, on the
21st of October, 1803, approved, and the proceeds directed to be applied accordingly.
7 v.2