1789.
III. The remaining point to be confidered, is, whether the purchafors under the order of the Orphan's Court are likewife bound to contribute ? Thefe purchafors, I acknowledge, appear to me to ftand in a very different light from the voluntary purchafors from the eldeft fon. The law, for the benefit of the families and creditors of perfons dying interftate, has refted the Orphan's Court with a power to direct the fale of certain parts of the interftate's real eftate for the payment of his bets. The fame law has directed the means of information to be given to the court, to prevent impofition and the unneceffary difmemberment of the real eftate. The power given to the Orphan's Court by this act is very great, and ought to be difcreetly exercifed ; but when the fale is made under their order, it is certainly a good one. The adminiftrator is vefted with as complete a power to fell the fpecial part of the real eftate, as he has be the common law to fell the perfonal ; and the purchafors from him ought to hold as fecurely in the one cafe, as the other. To fay, that, becaufe the adminiftrator is to exhibit upon oath an account of the debts, therefore the purchafors are to look to the payment of thofe debts, is in effect faying that the purchafors are to look to the legal exercife of the power vefted in the Orphan's Court, who may, unqueftionably, impofe fuch terms upon the adminiftrator, as are neceffary to fecure to the creditors and children, the confideration money arifing from the fales ; and fuch fecurity has in fact been required in many inftances by the Orphan's Courts in Pennʃylvania. Befides, if the purchafor is to look to the payment of the debts, he muft, likewife, look to the other objects for which the land is to be fold ; that is, the education and maintainance of the children, and the proper improvement of the refidue of the eftate, which not law founded in reafon could require.
The cafe of thefe purchafors, however, is not regularly before the court ; their lands(illegible text) not been taken in execution, neither are they comprized within the rule.
The rule, as it ftands, muft be difcharged.
PRINGLE verʃus M‘CLENANCHAN
T
HIS caufe being referres, a report was made in favor of the Plaintiff, to which the following exceptions were filed by the Defendant:
1ft. For that the Referres have entirely omitted to charge the Plaintiff John Pringle, with the fum of Ł.146. fpecie. for a lofs on a Policy of Infurance (illegible text) he underwrote to the Defendant, Blaire M‘Cleanachan, upon Brig Nancy, Richty, mafter, on a voyage from Cadix to Philadelphia in 1775.
2. For that in the month of December 1776 there was a ballance due from John Pringle to Blair M‘Cleanachan, of Ł. 2455. 13. 4. as appears by the account (illegible text) furnifhed the Referees;
