348 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.—2 BLAND.

not interfere to protect him. Terrewest v. Featherby, 2 Meriv. 480;
Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 529. And if a bond creditor has got
a judgment against the executor or heir, before the decree, then
after the decree, although such creditor, may come in and prove
accordingly as a judgment creditor, against the personal, or
the real estate in the hands of the executor or heir; yet the Court
will, on application, grant an injunction to prevent him from taking
out execution against the assets. Surrey v. Smalley, 1 Vern. 457;
Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan, 429; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 54: Price v. Evans, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 234.

The principle upon which an injunction rests in such cases, is,
that substantially, a bill by a creditor, in behalf of himself and all
others; or a suit by any one, in which all the creditors may be
represented, and allowed to come in to obtain satisfaction, is con-
sidered as making all of them parties to it; and that the decree is
in the nature of a judgment for them all; and, therefore, the Court,
to prevent difficulty, confusion, and injustice; and to sustain its
jurisdiction, thus assumed over the administration of the estate,
will never permit another suit to be instituted for the same object,
with the same parties, and directed to the same relief. If the
relief in the first suit can be extended; if expenses can be saved by
incorporating with it any proceeding which will avoid the necessity
of a second bill, there is an obvious propriety in not permitting
another suit to go on. But a second suit may be rendered neces-
sary either, by collusion in the former suit; or by its having left
out some principal matters of charge; or by its having omitted
from ignorance or negligence, some important ground of relief.
Coysgarne v. Jones, Amb. 613; Laic v. Rigby, 4 Bro. C. C. 60;
Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 47; Pickford v. Hunter, 6
Cond. Cha. Rep. 342; Calacrt on Parties, 222.

Such an injunction may, however, in some cases be made an
instrument of fraud and injury to the whole body of the creditors,
by persons, who have more interest in forbearing than urging their
demands against the representatives of the deceased, so managing
it as to leave the representatives in almost as undisturbed enjoy-
ment of the assets as before the bill was filed. To prevent such
an abuse of its authority, the Court, when asked for such an in-
junction, may look into the answer of the executor or administra-
tor and see what amount he admits to be in his hands; or if he has
not there stated * it, may order him to make affidavit of the
363 amount, and to bring into Court that, if any, which he so
admits to be in his hands. Yet it is not an absolute rule of the
Court to refuse an injunction, unless there is an affidavit stating
the assets in the hands of the personal representative. Or, should
a case arise, of assets wasted by a personal representative, from
the neglect of the solicitor, by whom the suit was conducted, the
Court would hold him responsible; Paxton v. Douglas, 8 Ves. 520;