370 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND—2 BLAND.

If any one of the creditors has received a part of Ms claim
from the estate of the debtor, he cannot be allowed to obtain any
thing more, until the other creditors have received satisfaction in
the same proportion; Sheppard v. Kent, 2 Vern. 435; The Case of
Sir Charles Cox, 3 P. Will. 344, n; Shiphard v. Lutwidge, 8 Ves.
29; Jennings v. Ulster, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 115; but a mortgage
creditor, after having exhausted the mortgaged estate by a sale,
may come iu against the other estate of his debtor for the deficiency
pari passu with the other creditors. Tooke v. Hartley, 2 Ero. C. C.
126; Shipkhard v. Lutwidge, 8 Ves. 29. This, however, does not
extend so far as to compel any creditor to bring back into hotchpot
any payment he may have fairly received. Lowthian v. Hasel, 4
Bro. C. C. 168. An heir or devisee was allowed formerly to re-
tain, for the same reason, that an executor or administrator was
allowed to retain, an amount equivalent to the satisfaction of his
debt, in preference to others. Loonies v. Stotherd, 1 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 235; Nunn v. Barlow, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 301. But as it has
been declared, that the claim of an executor or administrator shall
only * stand upon an equal footing with other claims of the
385 same nature; 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 8, s. 19; and as it had
been previously declared, that an heir or devisee should pursue
the same rules in the payment of debts out of the real assets as
were prescribed for an executor or administrator; 1785, ch. 80, s.
7; it would seem to follow, that the claim of au heir or devisee
should now, iu like manner, be held to stand only upon an equal
footing with all other claims of the same nature; and be allowed
to retain only for a due proportion. Player v. Foxhall, 1 Russ. 538;
Winter v. Hicks, 5 Cond. Cha. Rep. 490.

Here, however, it may be well to observe, that although it is
directed, by an Act of Assembly, that all judgments against the
deceased shall be first discharged, if the assets be sufficient; but
if not, and there be more judgments than one, a proportionable
division of the assets shall be made among them, in affirmance of
the common law, as to the personalty; Will. Ex'rs, 660; and then,
it is further declared, by the same Act of Assembly, that, in case
there be not personal estate sufficient, the heir or devisee shall
pursue the rules and directions aforesaid, in the payment of the
debts of the deceased; and that all Courts of law and equity shall
observe those rules and directions. 1785, ch. 80, s. 7. Yet as
nothing is said, in that legislative enactment, as to any lieu upon
the real or personal estate; and, as it would be impracticable, in
many cases, to satisfy judgments in due proportion only; and at
the same time sustain the liens of mortgagees and vendors, it has
been always held, that notwithstanding what is said in that Act of
Assembly, all lieus upon the realty must remain iu full force; and
that the rules therein laid down can only apply where no such lien
exists on the personal estate by a fieri facias actually delivered to