HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND. 335

tiffs may have an account of the personal estate entire; and so ob-
tain from the surviving partners that which properly forms a part
of the assets of the deceased. Bowsher v. Watkins, 4 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 424; Holland v. Prior, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 22. Where the bill
charges, that by collusion between the executor or administrator of
the deceased, and some third person the assets have been misap-
plied or wasted, such third person will be held liable; and, there-
fore, should be *made a party, in order to obtain a decree
against him, Elmslie v. M'Auley. 3 Bro. C. C.624; Doran v.349
Simpson, 4 Ves. 651; Alsager v. Rowley, 6 Ves, 749; Henfield v. Solo-
mons, 9 Vex. 86; so too, where the executor is insolvent and has not
The means to sue, or will not act, a creditor's suit may be brought
against him and other persons accountable to the estate, Bur-
roughs v. Elton, 11 Vex. 29. And where, after the death of a
debtor, his personal estate had passed into the hands of his execu-
tor or administrator, who died without accounting for such assets.
the executor or administrator of the deceased executor or adminis-
trator, becoming thereby, as it were, a representative of the first
deceased debtor, in respect of the assets which had thus come to
the hands of his testator or intestate; and being' so liable to that
extent, should be charged and made a party accordingly, together
with the surviving executor, or the administrator de bonis non of
the first deceased; not, however, upon the ground, that an execu-
tor of an executor is entitled here, as in England, to administra-
tion de bonis non of the first deceased, 1708, ch. 101, sub-ch. 5, s. 6:
but because of there being, in respect of such assets, a privity and
a mediate representation of and indebtedness to the first deceased.
1810, ch. 203, s. 3; Williams v. Williams. 9 Mod. 299; Holland v.
Prior, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 22.

In a creditor's bill against the representatives of a deceased
debtor, it was formerly not unusual to describe particularly the
real estate of which the deceased debtor died seized; but as it may,
in most cases, be impracticable for a creditor to do so, it has been
held to the unnecessary to set forth any description of the deceased's
real estate. McMcchen v. Chase, 11th July, 1815, per KILTY, Chan-
cellor, on demurrer for that cause. But it is usual, and in most
cases necessary, in such bills, to set out with a qui tarn allegation,
that "your orator, A. B., of—— county, as well on behalf of him-
self, as of other the creditors of C. D., late of —— county, de-
ceased, who shall come in and contribute to the expense of .this
suit, that the said C. D. being, in his life, and at the time of his
death, seized in fee simple of a considerable real estate," &c. 2
Harr. Pra. Cha. 322; Willis Plea. Eq. 220. Whence it would seem,
that the other creditors should always be called in to participate
as co-plaintiffs; but when they do come in, they are thenceforward
considered as parties to the suit; Neve v. Weston,3 Atk. 557; Hard-
castle v. Chettle, 4 Bro. 163; Good v. Blewiitt, 19 Ves. 338; and may