222 CAMPBELL'S CASE.

Although the property of a lunatic cannot, either by a court of
common law or equity, be removed beyond the reach of his credi-

to the said British subject before the war. No defence was made, but judgment was
entered up in the usual way, to be released upon payment, say of 400, with inte-
rest from the date of the bond and costs. Since Brown's death, some of his cre-
ditors have obtained a decree, in this court, for the sale of his lands for the payment
of his debts. The land hath actually been sold by William Richmond, trustee.
And now the said Jonas Chapman, not only claims a preference on account of his
judgment, but insists that there shall be no suspension of interest for the time during
which the war between the United States and Great Britain was carried on. On
the part of the other creditors it is insisted, that interest is due on the said judgment
only from the date of the bond to the commencement of the war, viz. to the ——
day of ——1775 to the end of the war, viz. from the ——day of September, 1783.

In various cases of claims exhibited in this court by British creditors against citi-
zens of this state, the Chancellor has directed a suspension of interest during the
said war; and indeed the parties have never claimed it. This is the only case in
which the point has been made; and as it is a question of law, which probably may
come before the General Court in some other case, he takes the liberty of requesting
the honourable the judges of the said court to favour him with their opinion on the
subject.

On the 7th of October, 1803, the Chancellor again, by an order, asked the opinion
of the judges of the General Court; but nothing further appears to have been done
in the matter. By the act of 1806, ch. 55, s. 2, the Chancellor may require the
opinion of the chief judge of the third judicial district on any question of law, &c.

BOUCHER v. BRADFORD.—This bill was filed on the 18th of February, 1789, by
John T. Boucher and others against Eleanor Bradford and others, the administratrix
and the infant heirs of Henry Bradford, deceased. It states, that the deceased was
indebted to the plaintiffs as therein specified; that his personal estate was insufficient
to pay his debts; and that he left real estate which could not be made answerable
for the satisfaction of the said claims during the minority of the said infants, but by
the aid of this court, &c. Prayer that the realty might be sold, &c. The defendants
answered, alter which the case was brought before the court.

20th June, 1793.—HANSON, Chancellor,—Decreed, that the real estate of the said
Henry Bradford, deceased, which hath descended from him, or by him been devised
to the defendants, his heirs, be sold for the payment of his just debts; it appearing to
the Chancellor, that his personal estate is insufficient for that purpose; and several
of the claims of the plaintiffs being established to the Chancellor's satisfaction, &c.
&c., the purchaser giving bond with good security to the trustee as such, &c. &c.

KILTY v. BROWN.—This was a creditor's bill, filed on the 7th of January, 1807—
William Kilty, the then Chancellor, being the only plaintiff and originally suing
creditor, the bill was, according to the act of 1805, ch. 65, s. 19, addressed to the
chief judge of the third judicial district. The bill stated that John Brown, deceased,
was indebted to the plaintiff on several claims, one of which was 'on a note executed
by the said John Brown, with Rinaldo Johnson as his security, to Nathaniel Wash-
ington, for the sum of sixty-seven pounds, current money, bearing date the fifteenth
day of December, seventeen hundred and ninety-eight; which note was assigned by
the said Nathaniel Washington to this plaintiff;' and that the personal estate of the
deceased was insufficient to pa? his debts—whereupon it was prayed that the real
estate Blight be sold, &c.