HAMMOND v. HAMMOND — 2 BLAND. 340

Gilpin v. Southampton, 18 Vets. 409; Drewry v. Thicker, 3 Swan. 544;
Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 54; or .should there be any
improper, delay by the original plaintiff, any one, who has been
allowed to come in as a creditor or party, may be permitted, to take
his place, and prosecute the suit. Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Ves. Jun.
165; Sims v. Ridge, 3 Meriv, 458; Powell v. Wallworth, 2 Mad. Rep.
183; Edmunds v. Ackland, 5 Mad. 31. For, although a plaintiff,
who sues on belialf of himself and all other persons of the .same
class, as lie acts upon his own mere motion, and at his own expense,
retains the absolute dominion of the suit, until another has been
admitted as a co-plaintiff, or until a decree to account, and may
dismiss the bill at his pleasure; yet, after another has been ad-
mitted as a co-plaintiff, or a decree has been passed, he cannot, by
his conduct, deprive other persons of the same class, who thus lie-
come actors, of the benefit of the suit if they think proper to
prosecute it. Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602; Dyot v. Anderton, 3
Ves. & Bea. 177; Handford v. Storie, 1 Cond.: Cha. Rep. 414;
Strike's Case, 1 Bland, 85.

I am, therefore, of opinion, that this is, in effect, and may prop-
erly be considered as a creditor's suit; although it is not expressly
alleged to have been instituted for the benefit a,s well of the credi-
tors of the testator, as of these plaintiff's; ami that the order di-
recting notice to be given to the creditors of the late Philip Ham-
moud to bring in their claims, was. in every respect, proper; and
must have the effect and operation of allowing a satisfaction to be
awarded to those creditors who shall come in as thus warned, and
of making a distribution of the residue of the estate among the re-
spective claimants. And, moreover, that the injunction granted
on the 29th of September last, to prevent the creditor, Ridgely,
from proceeding at law on the judgment he had obtained against
these executors, was proper and well warranted by the nature of
the case.

In order to ascertain who are creditors, and also, where neces-
sary, who are the next of kin of the deceased, the Court directs
public notice to be given by advertisements in newspapers, 364
or * otherwise, subject to the restrictions of the Act of As-
sembly, 1826, ch. 178, in those quarters where creditors and next
of kin are most likely to be found, calling on them to come in and
tile the vouchers of their claims in the Chancery office, usually
within four months from the day appointed for the sale of the real
estate. And when that time has expired, it being considered that
the best possible means have been taken to ascertain the parties
really entitled, the auditor is then, and not before, allowed or di-
rected to make a statement and distribution of that amount of the
personalty, if any; and of the proceeds of the sale of the realty,
after the sale has *been finally ratified, among the claimants. It is,
however, obvious, that the parties really entitled may never have