ELLICOTT v. WELCH.—2 BLAND. 233

ment as against the administrator unimpeached, and it surely
caunot be revised, impaired, or reversed in a Court of equity, then
the judgment standing as conclusive evidence against the admin-
istrator of a sufficiency of assets, the heir must be allowed, accord-
ing to the doctrine of substitution, to take the place of such credi-
tor, and to reimburse himself by proceeding npori the judgment
against the administrator. Clifton v. Hurt, 1 P. Will. 680; Edwards
v. Countess War trick, 2 P. Will. 175. Which would be, in effect,
to compel the parties to have recourse to a singular circuity of
remedy; or to divest a. judgment of some of its legal consequences;
or to determine, *that a judgment should have one kind of
operation at law, and another in equity; or to hold that a 248
plaintiff might, when it suited his purpose, and in some Courts,
insist, that a judgment, which he, himself, had caused to be en-
tered up, should be deemed conclusive evidence of fact; and yet
that he might be permitted, for other purposes and upon other
occasions, to insist that it should not stand in the way so as to pre-
vent him, for his own benefit, from proving the non-existence of
the very fact, of which lie himself had voluntarily received it as
the most satisfactory and conclusive evidence. Dorsey v. Ham-
mond, 1 Bland, 472. Equity follows the law, and in no respect
with more satisfaction than in avoiding anomalies and incongrui-
ties. And besides, if the petitioner Gaither, had intended to con-
trovert the fact of the sufficiency of the personal assets, he should
have tiled his bill here for the recovery of his claim: but. by suing
at law, he tacitly waived that right, as against the heirs, unless a
deficiency should be relied on and sustained as a defence by the
administrator: and he is now precluded from doing so, by the
nature of the judgments he himself has voluntarily sued for and
obtained.

The other petitioner Warfield, as the surety of the late Nicholas
Welch, might have filed a bill here against his heirs, on the ground
of the insufficiency of his personal estate, to charge the realty with
an indemnity to himself. Warfield, before he had paid the debt;
also in behalf of the other creditors of the late Nicholas Welch;
but having failed to do so, and having submitted to an absolute
judgment against himself, as administrator of his principal, he
can now have no such claim to reliei. Arthur v. The Attorney-
General, ante, 245, note.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the said petition be and the same
is hereby dismissed with costs.

On the 6th of November, 1829, William Gaither and James
Warfield, for themselves and in behalf of the other creditors of
be late Nicholas Welch, tiled their petition In this case, in which
they again stated the same facts which they had set forth in their
former petition, and that those absolute judgments had been im-