34 WELCH v. STEWART.—2 BLAND.

But 110 such new matter having been advanced and relied upon,
as a cause why these claims, Nos. 1, 2 and 5, should be rejected
altogether, or postponed in favor of, and to make way for the satis-
faction of the claims of these excepting creditors; they must stand
as having been established against the estate of the deceased. And
the claim No. 1, as inclusive of No. 2, having been secured by the
deed of trust, in the manner set forth by the bill, must be allowed
a preference of satisfaction out of the proceeds of the trust fund;
since it has not been alleged or shewn that there was any infirmity
in the deed of trust as regarded other creditors, not provided for
by it; or that this was not, in fact, one of the debts intended to
be secured by it. The proceeds of the trust fund, must therefore
be first applied in satisfaction of the claim No. 1, as including No.
2; and the surplus, if any, together with the proceeds of the other
portion of the deceased's estate to * the satisfaction of claim
39 No. 5, and of all others which may be established in due
course of administration.

It is admitted, that the plaintiff Welch's claim No. 3 is one
which has not been set forth and demanded by the bill; and there-
fore that it cannot be deemed to have been established by the
decree; even supposing that it might be introduced after the de-
cree, as an addition to the amount so claimed by him. But a
plaintiff cannot be allowed to split up, and multiply his causes of
action; nor to introduce any other claim, and call the Court back
to adjudicate upon it, after a decree has been passed, at his in-
stance, by which it might have been embraced had it been set forth
and demanded in his bill. Strike's, Case, 1 Bland, 95. For in
equity, as at law, where a plaintiff has several claims, the satisfac-
tion of all of which might be demanded in one suit, or a satisfac-
tion of each of which might be demanded by a separate suit, he
may, at his election, seek satisfaction by one, or by several suits.
Dickenson v. Harrison, 2 Exch. Rep. 105. But if, by a creditor's
bill; he sets forth and asks satisfaction of only one of his claims,
he must, thereby, be taken to have waived all right to demand
satisfaction in that suit of any other claim which he then had and
might have brought before the Court. Under such circumstances,
therefore, by analogy to the rules prescribed for executors and
administrators, 1785, ch, 80, s. 7; 1802, ch. 101, s. 8; 1798, ch. 101,
sub-ch. 8, s. 13, 14 and 15, the Court will proceed to distribute
the assets among the creditors of the deceased, to the exclusion
of any such claims as the plaintiff may so introduce as additions
to those specified in their bill, and which additional claims had
been negligently omitted, or improperly withheld.

But in laying down this rule, intended to impose upon a plain-
tiff an obligation to take seasonable care of all his rights, and to
prevent him from vexatiously increasing the expense, and retard-
ing the progress of a suit, instituted for the benefit of others as