WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.—2 BLAND. 495

Garnet, William Clayton and Nathan Wright all insolvent? Was
one of them solvent, and the others not? Have any steps been
taken to recover from them ? It is certain, perhaps, that they are
now protected by the Act of Limitations; but is this a reason
wherefore Clayton's estate is to be charged with the whole?''
Hindman v. Clayton, ante, Ml.

During the whole time of Chancellor KILTY, these principles
appear to have been continually recognized as the settled law of
the Court; and in one case of a creditor's suit, where he himself
was the originally suing creditor, he evidently acquiesced under
them, although they were opposed to his own interest; and asked
a decision from the Judge, to whom his case was necessarily sub-
mitted, founded upon their admitted correctness and established
authority. Kitty v. Brown, ante, 222. lint although They appear
to have been so repeatedly recognized by Chancellor KILTY, yet I
have met with no case, in which he has given any reasons by
which he had conceived they might be sustained.

Chancellor JOHNSON, in an order passed on the 10th of April,
1822, in a creditor's suit, addressing himself immediately to this
subject, says, ''the complainants except to that part of the audi-
tor's * report unfavorable to the claim of Nicholas Ham-

mond, which claim is founded on a bond executed by one 518
John Mace and William Frazier, the above deceased, as security.
The auditor, in conformity with the usual course of the Court,
would not allow the claim without evidence, to establish the alle-
gation in the bill, that Mace, the principal debtor, was insolvent.
A Court of equity, when it interposes and adjusts the relative-
obligations of contracts and agreements, in which more than
two parties are concerned, calls them all before the Court; that a
complete and final adjustment may take place, and each be com-
pelled to pay his just portion; and thereby, the creditor draws
from each, being solvent, what equitably ought finally to be drawn
from him. It will not compel the one, both of the debtors being
solvent, to pay the whole, and turn him over to his co-security to
restore one-half. When, therefore, estates are sold to pay debts;
and in which the interests of minors are generally deeply involved,
it becomes the duty of the Court to see that no claim be allowed,
in which the deceased, with others, stands indebted, without satis-
factory proof being produced, that the other persons joined in the
obligation, were insolvent. But as that proof is now produced in
support of the claim No. 4, the same is hereby allowed." Edmond-
son v. Frazier, 1 Bland, 92.

From these adjudications it appears, that the first position taken
in support of these principles, in relation to the administration of
the real assets of the deceased debtor, is, that this Court may, in
its discretion, withhold from the creditor, the relief he asks, alto-