500 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.— 2 BLAND.

Sic/gens' Case, 5 Co. 45; Bidleson v. Whytel, 4 Burr. 1548; Drake
v. Mitchell, 3 East, 258; Kiddle v. Mandeville, 5 Cran. 330,

But the cases in which this general rule is laid down, do not pro-
fess to declare, that the obligee, on a joint aud several bond, may
not sue one or both obligors; but that he may, if he pleases, sue
one only, or all, as at law. For, if it were not so, there would be
no difference in equity betwixt a joint bond, and one joint and
several; and if any of the obligors have paid all or a part, the
obligor who is sued, or his representative must bring a bill aud
have it allowed; and it must also lie upon him to compel the other
obligors to contribute towards payment of the debt; not upon the
creditor who lent his money upon a security that enabled him to
sue the obligors severally, if he should think fit; and indeed, if it
were otherwise, that which was intended to strengthen the secu-
rity would tend to hurt it extremely; for the creditor might not be
able to find out all who might thus be bound to him; because by
the same reason, that all the other obligors themselves must be
sued, if any of them were dead, their heirs as well as executors
must he made parties; and then, as it would be difficult to com-
mence the suit; so the suit, when commenced, would be subject to
continual abatements, which would be a great difficulty on an
honest creditor who had fairly lent his money. Collins v. Griffith,
2 P. Will. 313; Ex parte Rolandson, 3 P. Will. 405; Haywood v.
Ovey, 6 Mad. 113.

But if these principles are to be sustained by any thing to be
deduced from this general rule, that all persons interested must
be made parties; then it would be indispensably necessary, in every
creditor's suit, when a creditor presented a claim, for the satisfac-
tion of which the deceased with others had been bound, that such
creditor should be permitted and required, in some way, to make
all the co-obligors of the deceased parties to the same case; for
* otherwise, it would be impossible, or improper, or unsafe,
524 according to the reasons of the principles of the Court to
decide upon the relative equities of the deceased debtor whose
representatives were then before the Court and his co-obligors;
without compromising the interests of some, or doing gross injus-
tice to the creditor.

Under our system of partible inheritances the difficulties which
beset a creditor's bill, by which it is necessary to bring before the
Court a large family of heirs and devisees of a deceased debtor,
together with his executors or administrators, have been found to
be so very great, that it has been attempted to remedy the evil by
requiring the heir at common law alone to be served with process,
and allowing all the others to be called in, by a general publica-
tion, and to appear or not as they might think proper. 1797, ch.
114; Kilty v. Brown, ante, 222. There is, however, no instance
to be found in the English books, nor among the records of this