HAMMOND v. HAMMOND— 2 BLAND. 345

tors of the deceased, then the suit may, thenceforward, bo eon-
fined to the administration of the personal estate alone, continu-
ing the personal representatives only as defendants, .and dismiss-
ing the bill as against the heirs. But, it is the habit of the Court,
where the insufficiency of the personal estate is admitted or shewn,
and it thus foresees that the real estate must be sold, to decree a
sale of it immediately without .setting the case down for final hear-
ing. Holme v. Stanley, 8 Vex. 1; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 63, Birch
v. Glover, 4 Mad. 376: Kilty v. Brown, ante, 222; Boncher v. Brad-
ford, ante, 222; Tyson v. Hollingworh. ante, 327; 1835. ch. 380, s. 1:
Chamberlain v. Brown, ante, 221.

The establishment of some claim of a creditor, and the insuffi-
ciency of the personal estate to discharge the debt due by the de-
ceased, thus shewn, or not denied by the heirs, being the founda-
tion on which a decree for a sale of the realty must rest: and with-
out which, it could not have been passed, such a decree, therefore,
necessarily establishes the validity of such claim, and the insuffi-
ciency of the personalty, without leaving those matters open to
any further question by any of the immediate parties to it.
Mackuhin v. Broicn, 1 Bland, 415. And as the coming in. under
such decree, implies a submission to it, no creditor, who thus comes
in, can be allowed to impeach it; except on the ground of fraud
among the original parties to it; and in so far as it injuriously
affects his interests, by making a wrong disposition of the property.
Giffard v. Hort, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 409. If a part only of the claim
of the plaintiff be sustained, the decree should specify what part
has been established: and how much has been finally rejected, or
is to be, allowed to stand over to he again brought forward, upon
further proof, with the claims of other creditors; but if no such
specification be made, then it must be assumed, that the decree
has finally established the validity of all the claims of the several

the same were, by the Chancellor, read; and it appears that, although there
is a regular answer of the infant defendants Eleanor and Samuel, by their
guardian, admitting the facts stated in the bill, there is no regular answer
on the part of the other defendants. However, that there may be as little
further delay as possible, the Chancellor thinks proper to pass immediately
that order which is required by law, before a mortgagee can obtain a decree
for a sale against infant defendants, heirs of a mortgagor.

It is thereupon Ordered, that in case the aforesaid facts shall be admitted
by the answers of all the defendants, or otherwise established to the Chan-
cellor's satisfaction, he will pass a decree for the sale of the mortgaged
lands in the bill mentioned, for the payment of the mortgage debt: provided
the complainant shall first file with the register of this Court a bond to the
infant defendants Eleauor Clarke and Samuel Clarke, with good and suffi-
cient surety, approved by the Chancellor, in the penalty of £400, with the
following condition, &c. (This bond was required by 1785, ch. 72, s. 2, but
it has been since declared that it shall not be necessary or required, 1837, ch.
293.