ELLICOTT v. WELCH. 243

also a debt due to such administrator, for which he might retain; which conclusive
evidence must necessarily enure to the benefit of the heirs and devisees; who, if
made to pay, have a right, by substitution, to proceed on such judgment to obtain
reimbursement.—The Court of Chancery cannot revise or reform a judgment of a
court of common law in any way whatever.

THIS bill was filed on the 7th of November, 1825, by George
Ellicott against Joshua Warfield and Rachel Welch the administra-
tors, and Derastus Welch, John Welch, Nicholas Welch, Rachel
Welch and Howard Welch, the infant heirs of the late Nicholas
Welch, and Warner Welch, with whom the administratrix Rachel
had intermarried. The bill states, that the plaintiff sold a parcel
of land to John Welch; which, according to the agreement entered
into between them, was, when fully paid for, to be legally con-
veyed to him; that soon after entering into this agreement, John
Welch assigned his interest in the land to Nicholas Welch, who
took possession of it, and paid a part of the purchase money;
that Nicholas Welch died intestate, leaving the defendants his
heirs, and a widow, the defendant Rachel, who had since inter-
married with Warner Welch; that administration had been granted
to the widow and Joshua Warfield of the personal estate which
was wholly insufficient to pay the debts of the deceased; and that
the land was bound by a lien to the plaintiff for the payment of
the balance of the purchase money.—Upon which it was prayed
that the land might be sold to satisfy the said claim.

As against the widow and her husband, who, having been sum-
moned, had failed to answer, an interlocutory decree was passed
taking the bill pro confesso. The infant heirs, answering by their
guardian ad litem, admitted the truth of the allegations of the bill.
And the administrator, in his answer, also admitted the truth of
the plaintiff's statement; and prayed that the balance which might
remain should be paid to him to be applied, by him, under the
directions of the Orphans Court, to the payments of such debts as
[ might be then due from Nicholas Welch, deceased, in consequence
of the insufficiency of his personal estate. Upon this case, on the
14th of July, 1826, a decree was passed, in the usual form, direct-
ing the land to be sold; under which it was sold accordingly, and
the sale finally ratified on the 19th of February, 1827.

The widow, with her second husband, by petition, prayed to be
allowed a portion of the proceeds of the sale in lieu of the dower
to which she was entitled in the land sold. The plaintiff objected,
that the claim was to his prejudice; and therefore should not be
allowed.