346 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND.

plaintiffs. Strikers Case, 1 Bland, 68; Mackubm v. Brown, 1 Bland,
414: Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland, 441; Chamberlain v. Brown,
ante, 221; Boucher v. Bradford, ante, 222; Kilty v. Brown, ante,
222. And although the personal estate may not be sufficient
360 * to pay all; yet if it appears, that there is still a portion of
it to be accounted for, and distributed, then the same decree, which
directs a sale of the realty, should also require the executor or ad-
ministrator to account for the personalty; and, if the creditors
have not been previously called in, the same decree should more-
over direct the trustee appointed to make the sale, to give them
notice, at the time of advertising the real estate for sale, to file
the vouchers of their claims in the Chancery office.

Such a decree virtually takes possession of the property and
vests it in the Court, for the purpose of distribution; Shewn v.
Vanderhorst, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 461; The Commomwealth v. Rags-
dale, 2 Hen. & Mun 8: and, consequently, the Court may thence-
forward exercise over it all such control and authority as may be
necessary for its beneficial preservation. If if cannot be imme-
diately sold, it may be rented, or disposed of in the meantime, to
the best advantage: Williams' Cane, port, 3 vol; the committing of
any waste upon it, may be prohibited by injunction; Cam-major v,
Strode, 1. Cond. Cha.. Rep. 195; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland. 576; or a
receiver may be put upon it to collect and take care of its rents
and profits. Jones v. Pugh, 8 Ves. 71. The trustee appointed to
make the sale, being the mere agent of the Court; April, 1787, ch.
30, s. 5; it is the Court who must be regarded as the vendor; and
as the bolder of the vendor's equitable lien. Iglehart v. Armiger.
1 Bland, 527; Andrews v. Scotton, post. The trustee, without in
cumbering the report of his proceedings, with any thing more
than a concise reference to the decree; and a brief averment, that
be had, in all respects, complied with its directions; or if not, with
a statement of the way in which be bad departed from those direc-
tions, should clearly and distinctly set forth the date and terms of
the contract of sale which he had made with the purchaser, naming
him; and which contract he thus submitted to the Court for its
continuation or rejection.

So soon as the Court has, by a decree, assumed the general ad-
ministration of the assets, it will on motion or petition; Paxton v.
Douglas, 8 Ves. 520; Gilpin v. Southampton, 18 Vex, 469; and with-
out, as formerly, a second bill filed for that purpose; Douglas v.
Clay, 1 Dick. 393; Hardcastle v. Chettle, 4 Bro. C. C. 103; Jackson
v. Leaf, 1 Jac. & Wal 231; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. tiep.
54: interpose by injunction; and stop in its progress to judgment,
an action at law, brought by any creditor for payment of his debt;
Broohs v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183; Kenyon v. Worthington, 2
Dick. 668; Goate v. Fryer, 2 Cox, 201; S. C. 3 .Bro. C. C. 23; Hard-
castle v.Chettle, 4 Bro. C. C. 163; Paxton v. Douglas, 8 Ves. 520;