86 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

* be conceded on all hands, that these originally suing credi-
93 tors have an interest in these real assets; but, yet it is urged,
that they cannot make such objections as those against the claims
of their fellow creditors. This matter must be determined by
practice, on principle, and on authority.

The defendants, or the representatives of deceased debtors, are
generally, from strong motives of interest, so very active in their
opposition to all and each of the creditors, where opposition can
avail, that they rarely leave any thing to be said or done by any
one else; and hence, it would seem, from the practice of the Court,
that they were the only persons who had any right to urge such
objections. It is obvious, therefore, that the main current of the
practice here is not likely to be very fruitful of information on this
subject.

There is a class of creditors' bills common in England, but of
rare occurrence here, which will cast light upon this matter. Bills
are often brought here by one creditor in behalf of himself and
others, against executors to obtain payment, and to have the assets
brought in and administered under the directions of the Court of
Chancery. 1 Mad. Chan. 578. In such cases the executor is not
bound to plead the Statute of Limitations; and if he does not, the
creditors will have a decree, and be paid. But it is the constant
course, in the master's office, to take the objections against other
creditors, and to exclude from distribution those, who, if legal
objections az'e brought forward, cannot make their claims effectual.
So too, in cases of bankruptcy—if the bankrupt waives any objec-
tion, it may still be made by the creditors; and the reason of this
is, that the creditors have a direct and manifest interest in the
funds, and that it should satisfy their whole claims respectively.
If each of them was not permitted to make these objections, they
would be left at the mercy of those, for a full defence, who, in all
cases, where the fund is not more than enough to pay all the debts,
have no interest in excluding any one from partaking, to their pre-
judice, in the distribution, however ill-founded his claim may be.
And besides, such proceedings in Chancery, are only to be con-
sidered as other modes of compelling payment; and the Chancel-
lor is understood, in the distribution, to govern himself as to legal
debts by the rules of law: and as to equitable debts, by the rules
of equity, regarding the claim of each creditor as a suit depeud-
ing; and hence, if the * executor or bankrupt fails to object
94 or to plead the Statute of Limitations, it may be made or

same time. The bill in this cause was filed on 23d October, 1815, more than
twenty-five years after the bond; which was made payable forthwith. A
sufficient length of time has elapsed to presume payment. Nor is there any
evidence in the cause to remove the presumption. The exception taken to
the claim No. 3, is therefore supported, and the claim is hereby rejected.
The auditor is directed to re-state the account, rejecting the said claim.