HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.— 2 BLAND. 331

the purchaser: 1785, ch. 72, s. 7: notwithstanding the minority of
the heirs or devisees. Poweys v. Mansfield, 9 Cond. Cha. Rep. 445.
And consequently, the pretext, that of allowing the parol to de-
mur, for depriving the creditors of the rents and profits of their
deceased debtor's real estate in favor of his infant heirs or de-
visees, having been thus abrogated, an account of such rents and
profits may now be called for from the infant as well as from the
adult heirs and devisees of a deceased debtor, Co. Litt. 113, a;
236, a; Lancaster v. Thornton, 2 Burr, 1031; Yates v. Compton, 2
P. Will. 311; Bedford v. Leigh, 2 Dick. 709; Silk v. Prime, 1 Bro.
C. C. 140, note; Curtis v. Curtis, 2 tiro. C. C 633; 1798, ch. 101,
sub-ch. 12, s. 9; upon the same ground, that his executor or admin-
istrator may be, made to account for the increase and profits of his
personal estate. Will. Exxrs. 1012. So that in all cases, where it
appears that the realty must be responsible, a receiver may be put
upon it, where necessary, for the purpose of taking care of its
rents and profits for the benefit of the creditors. Sweet v. Part-
ridge, 2 Dick. 696; Jones v. Pugh. 8 Ves. 71.

To enable a creditor to sue on behalf of himself and all others
who stand in the same relation with him to the subject of the suit, it
must appear, that the relief sought by him is, in its nature, bene-
ficial to all those whom he undertakes to represent; Good v. Blew-
itt, 13 Ves. 397; 8. C. 19 Ves. 336; Burney v. Morgan, 1 Cond. Ch.
Rep. 185; Gray. Chaplin, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 451; Spittal v. Smith,
5 Cond. Cha. Rep. 275; and that *the object of the bill is
not merely to establish any existing priorities among them
as creditors. Newton v. Eymont, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 205; Calvert
on Parties, 220. A mortgagee or a vendor holding an equitable lieu,
claiming merely as such, has no common interest with the creditors
at large; and therefore, cannot be allowed to represent them by
suing on their behalf, and having them called in to participate in
a suit, the sole object of which is to obtain the benefit of such a
lieu, by which the whole subject in controversy is claimed, and
may be entirely borne away. Sumner v. Kelly. 2 Scho. and Lefr. 398;
Burney v. Morgan, i Cond. Cha. Rep. 185; Gray v. Chaplin, 1
Cond. Cha. Rep. 454: David v. Grahame, 2 H. & G. 94. As where
the plaintiff alleged, that he was the vendor of a tract of land,
for which a part of the purchase money was still due, which land
had descended to the defendants as heirs of the vendee; and that
the personal estate of the deceased purchaser was insufficient to
pay his debts. The truth of all which was admitted; and the
administrator by his answer prayed, that the balance of the
proceeds of sale, after paying the plaintiffs, might be put in-
to his hands to be applied to the payment of the debts of the
deceased. But this prayer of the administrator was rejected; upon
the ground, that no sufiicient foundation had been laid to author-
ize the Court to treat the case as a creditor's suit and to assume