LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 239

them. In the other alternative, considering this contract as a
bargain and sale, Henderson's administratrix is liable, as the
holder of his personal estate, for the purchase money as one of his
debts, for the payment of which, that part of his estate is pri-
marily liable; and his heirs are liable, because the. real estate it-
self, encumbered with an equitable lien for the payment of the
purchase money, has passed into their hands; and also because of
any other real estate of the intestate which may have descended
to them, in case his personal estate may be found insufficient to
pay his debts. But, it must be recollected, that the liability of
each, and of all of these defendants is only in respect, and to the
extent of the assets which may have come to their hands from the
deceased contractor, who they thus far and no farther represent.
But to the amount, that may be necessary to give to the plaintiffs
complete and entire satisfaction, all the estate of John Henderson
deceased in the hands of these defendants is liable, and no part of
it can, by any act of any one, or all of them together, be disen-
gaged from that liability without making to the plaintiffs a full
and entire satisfaction. The Court may, in some cases, like this,
so marshal the bearing of the liability, provided it be attended
with no delay or risk to the plaintiffs, as to place its burthen
equally upon every part, or upon that portion of the estate by
which it ought first to be borne; but as every part of the estate of
the deceased is liable for the whole claim of the plaintiff's, no portion
of it can be discharged until they have * been fully satis-
fied. Hence it is clear, that this contract as against these 254
defendants is as absolutely indivisible and incapable of being
broken up into separate parts by them, or iu their favor by the
Court, as it was against John Henderson during his life-time.

It appears, that, of these five defendants, David English and
Lydia his wife, alone have put in such an answer as the bill calls
for; that after they had done so, and the bill had been amended,
the defendant Richard Henderson filed a plea of the Statute of
Limitations, to which answer and plea the plaintiffs put in a gene-
ral replication; and that the order of publication has been pub-
lished as required, so that the bill may now be taken pro confesso
against the absent defendants Sarah Henderson and Janet L.
Henderson. In this situation the case has beeu brought before
the Court for a final decree upon the whole matter in controversy.

The defence of Lydia English, goes to the whole; because she
admits, that such a contract as is stated in the bill was actually
made, but avers, that it was satisfied; in other words she confesses
and avoids the whole charge; and therefore, if her matter in
avoidance be true, the plaintiffs can have no relief against her;
because she would thus shew, that the whole claim had been actu-
ally satisfied. The defendant David English is passive; without
expressly denying any thing, he admits nothing; and therefore,