STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 85

payment of his debts, that there never seems to have been any
difference of opinion as to his right to make such objections.
Where an executor or administrator fails to make such objections,
or waives them, or there has been a judgment against him, still
the heir or devisee may make such objections in defence of the
Teal assets. And where the executor and some of the heirs waive
them; yet, any other of the heirs or devisees may alone make
them in defence of the whole of the real assets, as was done in
the Case of Wm. Frazier's Estate in this Court, (r) It seems to

(v) EDMONDSON v. FRAZIEK.—- This bill was brought by creditors to subject
the real estate of the deceased debtor to the payment of his debts. The
estate was sold accordingly under a decree in the usual form. The auditor,
in his report of the 29th January, 1823, says, ''the Act of Limitations, which.
as a bar to the creditors' claims, is relied upon by the distributees only, the
auditor is not satisfied they are entitled, under the circumstances, to the
benefit of it." This report was excepted to by the distributees on this and
other accounts.

JOHNSON, C., 10th April, 1822.—Exceptions to the auditor's report are filed.
The complainants except to that part of the auditor's report unfavorable to
the claim of Nicholas Hammond. which claim is founded on a bond exe-
cuted by one John Mace, and William Frazier, the above deceased, as secur-
ity. The auditor, in conformity with the usual course of the Court, would
not allow the claim without evidence to establish the allegation in the bill,
that Mace, the principal debtor, was insolvent. A Court of equity when it
interposes, and adjusts the relative obligations of contracts and agreements
in which more than two parties are concerned, calls them all before the
Court; that a complete and final adjustment may take place, and each be
compelled to pay his just portion; and thereby the creditor draws from
each, being solvent, what equitably ought finally to be drawn from him.
It will not compel the one, both of the debtors being solvent, to pay the
whole, and turn him over to his co-security to restore the one-half. When,
therefore, estates are sold to pay debts, and in which the interests of minors
are generally deeply involved, it becomes the duty of the Court, to see, that
no claim be allowed, in which the deceased, with others, stands indebted,
without satisfactory proof being produced, that the other persons joined in
the obligation were insolvent. But as that proof is now produced in sup-
port of the claim No. 4, the same is hereby allowed, and the trustee is
directed to pay the same, with a due portion of the interest received, or that
shall be received.

Exceptions are filed on the behalf of Wm. R. Stewart and wife, of Samuel
Wright and Mary Elizabeth Wright, to the claim distinguished by No. 3.
This claim, by the answer of those who are only interested in its rejection,
under the decree, is strongly contested, and the Act of Limitations relied on
as a bar to the recovery. The answer of one defendant, in Chancery, can
never implicate the interest of a co-defendant; but more especially, when
the person, so answering, is not interested in the matter in controversy.
The answer, therefore, of Wm. Steward's (Frazier's) widow, and executrix,
who had exhausted the personal funds, never can be received to charge the
real. They can only be affected by the answer of those interested in. them,
or by the exhibition of such proofs as will bind them. The claim No. 3,
rests on a bond dated 7th February, 1790: and on an open account, about the