HAMMOND v. HAMMOND —2 BLAND. 303

as well for the benefit of creditors, as for the protection of
the representatives of the deceased debtor; Ken-yon v. Worth-
ington, 2 Dick. 669; Perry v. Phelips, 10 Ves. 40; Drewry v. Thacker,
3 Swan. 543; either because the assets of the deceased are, or may,
if not placed in safety and correctly administered, be insufficient
to satisfy all; or because it is necessary for the legatees, or second-
ary claimants, who can obtain nothing until the creditors, or pri-
mary claimants or incumbrances have been first called in and
satisfied, Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 47; or because
the debtor, though alive, being insolvent, has no more than a cer-
tain amount to be distributed ratably among his creditors, or has
by a deed of composition specially appropriated all his estate and
effects for the satisfaction of all his creditors, who all come in
accordingly; Atherton v. Worth, 1 .Dick. 375; which property is
likely to be misapplied, or wasted by the debtor or holder of it:
or that the parties to the deed of composition are too numerous
to be made parties to such suit. Downes v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 206:
Weld v. Bonham, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 361; Gray v. Chaplin, 1 Cond.
Cha. Rep. 451: Willliamson v. Wilson. 1 Poland, 430. The sole or
principal object of bills in equity for any of these purposes being
the satisfaction of creditors, they are emphatically called credi-
tors' suits; and are, for the most part, governed by rules common
to them all. (H)

By the common law, lands in the hands of the heir, were liable
to bond creditors only, where the heir was specially bound; and
even to that extent, as they had no lien upon, the real estate de-
scended; the heir was only personally liable, in respect of and to
the value of the real assets descended; and, therefore, a bond
creditor could make no claim against such real estate in the hands
of a bona fine purchaser for a valuable consideration without
notice. 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 249; Coleman v. Winch, 1 P. Will. 777;
Matthews v. Jones, 2 Anstr. 500; Craig v. Baker, ante, 238. But
even a bond creditor could not recover his debt of the, heir, if he
* had aliened the land before an action was brought, or of 318
a devisee of his debtor at any time. Solley v. Gower; 2
Vern. 61; Plunket v. Penson, 2 Atk. 291; Ex parte Moreton, 5 Vex.
449; Bac. Abr. tit. Heir and Ancestor, F. To prevent this wrong
and injury to creditors, it was declared by an English statute,
passed in the year 1691, that the heir should be liable to the value
of the land descended to, and aliened by him; and that all de-
vises should be void, as against creditors; who should have the
same right to sustain an action of debt against such devisee, that
they could have had against the heir. 3 W. & M. c. 14. But as
the relief, given by this statute, is confined to those cases only

(n) It has been provided by a late Act of Assembly, that in certain cases, a
creditor's bill may be filed against a corporation, 1832, ch. 306. e. 4.