232 ELLICOTT v. WELCH.—2 BLAND.

But in this case there is no creditor before the Court, having a
common interest with others, and resting his claim to relief on the
ground of the insufficiency of the personal assets of the deceased;
nor any one who can have any pretence whatever to be considered
as having a right to be substituted for such a creditor. The prayer
or recommendation of the administrator Joshua Warfield introduces
to the Court no such party; and the suggestion of the auditor is
altogether unauthorized.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the statement as made and re-
ported by the auditor be and the same is hereby ratified and con-
firmed, and the trustee is directed to apply the proceeds accord-
ingly, * with a due proportion of interest that has been or
247 may be received.

William Gaither and Joshua Warfield, for themselves and in
behalf of the other creditors of Nicholas Welch, deceased, on the
25th of August, 1829, filed their petition in this case, in which
they stated, that the late Nicholas Welch, being indebted to Gai-
ther, died leaving real and personal estate; that administration
having been granted on the personal estate of the !ate Nicholas to
the petitioner Joshua Warfield, he, Gaither, sued Joshua, and ob-
tained an absolute judgment against him; and that Joshua being
also the surety of the late Nicholas, he, Gaither, had moreover
sued and obtained a judgment against him on that ground. Upon
which it was prayed that the petitioners might be allowed to come
in as creditors, &c.

BLAND, C., 20th August, 1829.—The case with this petition hav-
ing been submitted without remark the proceedings were read and
considered.

It is admitted, that the judgments which this petitioning credi-
tor Gaither recovered against the administrator of the late Nicho-
las Welch were absolute. This admission is alone sufficient to pre-
clude him from any claim upon the real assets in the hands of the
heirs of the deceased debtor; because, such judgments are con-
clusive evidence of a sufficiency of personal assets in the hands of
the administrator to satisfy the claim. And that too as well be-
tween such creditor and the heirs of the deceased debtor, as
between such creditor and the administrator of the deceased
debtor. Because, if, notwithstanding such a judgment, the cred-
itor were allowed to recover against the heir, leaving the judg-

interest, shall be divided in due proportion, amongst the persons entitled'
agreeably to the said statement, to the principal.

Each creditor obtained his dividend of the proceeds of sale as of course,
leaving a balance still due to Hopkins and George, for which the plaintiffs
were liable to them as sureties.