302 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND.

The defendants have urged, that there is nothing in the plead-
ings, as amended and aided by the agreement filed on the 7th of
November last, which can warrant these plaintiffs in assuming the
position of creditors; or which can give them a right to have their
complaint considered as a creditor's suit under which they could,
as has been done, give notice, in the usual manner, to the cred-
itors of Philip Hammond, deceased, to come in and participate in
the distribution of this fund. To answer this objection, and for
the purpose of obtaining a clear view of the whole subject, I shall
take this occasion to consider the nature of a creditor's suit more
at large, than the questions now presented, may seem to require.

The estate of a deceased person must be first applied to the pay-
ment of his debts, leaving the residue only to go, as directed by
his will, or as the law has provided in case of intestacy. But as
the person who takes out administration of his estate, in most
cases, cannot know who are his creditors,"and may not know who
are his next of kin; and the administration of his estate may be
exposed to great delay and embarrassment; the Court of Chancery
has long exercised a most wholesome jurisdiction, in such cases,
tor the prevention of delay and embarrassment; and for the assist-
ance avid protection of the representatives of the deceased, by
assuming the administration of his estate. David v. Frowd, 7
Cond. Chan. Rep. 8. With these views; and, for the purpose of
securing the fund, and of doing equal justice to all, this Court will
take upon it-self, the general administration of the assets of a de-
ceased debtor, either at the instance of one or move of his credi-
tors, Douglass v. Clay, 1 Dick. 393: Paxton v. Douglass, 8 Ves. 520:
Terrewest v. Featherby, 2 Merix. 480; 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 8, s. 7;
1802. ch. 191; or legatees, Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183:
Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 544; Jackson v. Leaf, 1 Jac. and Wat.
229; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 47: or next of kin;
Waite v. Temple, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 102; Greig v. Somerville, 4
Cond. Cha. Rep; 453; Conway v. Green, 1 H. & J. 151; 1718, ch.
,5, s. 3; 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 14, s. 6; or on a bill tiled by an exe-
cutor. Perry v. Phelips, 10 Ves. 39; or a trustee of the testator's
estate, for direction or indemnity in the payment of debts. Leech
v. Leech, 1 Cha. Ca. 249; Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183.
And it will, in like manner, in some cases, assume the distribution

317 of the estate * and effects of a living insolvent debtor among

his creditors. Atherton v. Worth, 1 Dick. 375; Downes v.

Thomas, 7 Yen. 206; Weld v. Bonham, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 301; Gray
v. Chaplin, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 454; Newton v. Egmont, 6 Cond.

Cha. Rep. 265; Strikers Case, 1 Bland, 94; Williamson v. Wil-

son, 1 Bland, 430. The foundation upon which this jurisdiction
seems to rest, is the principle, that equality is equity; and
that its proper application requires the interposition of the pecu-
liar powers of a Court of Chancery, Martin v. Martin, 1 Ves. 211f