HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 313

personal representative of his deceased debtor, so as to enable the
heir to protect himself without any circuity of judicial proceed-
ing; and to save the realty, by Laving the personal estate first
applied to the satisfaction of the debts; and to do justice to all
the creditors by allowing them to come in according to their re-
spective priorities; or for their due proportions. The adoption of
these principles, and the giving of this construction to this statute,
necessarily threw the administration of all real assets into the
Court of Chancery; and gave a new and very enlarged scope to a
creditor's suit.

Such must have been the course of proceeding, in all cases,
under this statute, after the death of a debtor, as well where his
heir was of full age, as in those cases where he was a minor; Cox
v. Callahan, ante, 51, note; for, if it- were not so, then a simple con-
tract creditor, as he was not allowed to sue at law, could, before the
year 1818, have had no recourse against the real assets in the hands
of adult heirs in any way whatever; since prior to that time, the
only Act of Assembly in relation to the matter, being merely in-
tended to prevent delay in proceeding against infants, 1785, ch.
72, s. 5, this British Statute which had made such real estate as-
sets for the payment of debts; would have been, thus far, virtually
nullified, (r) This matter has, however, been put to rest by a pos-

(r) TYSON v. HOLLINGSWORTH.—This bill was filed, on the 25th of May,
1801, by Nathan Tyson and others, creditors of Thomas Parkin and Francis
McKenna, partners trading under the firm of Parkin & McKenna, against
Jesse Hollingsworth and Rachel his wife, Susannah Goodwill and James
Carey. The bill states that the firm of Parkin & McKeuna had contracted
debts to a considerable amount with the plaintiffs, as appeared by the prom-
issory notes of the firm therewith exhibited; that Thomas Parkin, by his
last will, devised all his estate, real and personal, to the defendant Rachel,
his mother, and appointed her his executrix, and soon after died; that she
was, at that time, above twenty-one years of age: and on her refusing to act
as executrix, letters testamentary, with the will annexed, were granted to
the defendant Susannah; that, afterwards, Francis McKenna made his last will,
by which he appointed the defendant James Carey, his executor, and soon
after died; upon which the defendant Carey, qualified as his executor. The bill
further states, that Thomas Parkin and Francis McKenna, at the time of their
death, were considerably indebted, as appeared by the accounts of the de-
fendant James Carey, passed before the Orphans' Court, and exhibited as a part
of the bill; and that all their partnership effects and personal estate were in-
sufficient to discharge their debts; and that the whole of their partnership
effects, and their personal estate, had been exhusted in the payment of his
debts; and that there remained then, due from the estate of Parkin and
McKenna, to the plaintiffs, a considerable sum of money; that the testator.
Francis, left no real estate: that the testator Thomas, held, at the time of
his death, ten shares of bank stock, which had passed into the hands of bis
administratrix, the defendant Susannah: that he had died unmarried, and
without issue, seized of real estate; but left no brother or sister of the whole
or half blood; nor any issue of a brother or sister; nor did he leave a father;
and that his mother, who was his heir-at-law, claimed the real estate left by