WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.—2 BLAND. 501

Court, of a creditor's suit, in winch it was ever proposed to make
a co-obligor of the deceased debtor a party to the suit. But if,
in addition to the family of representatives of the deceased debtor
himself; the families of his co-obligors, were, in like manner,
allowed, or required to be brought before the Court by each of the
creditors to whom they were bound, the parties would be innumera-
ble, abatements would be continual, the suit would he intermina-
ble, and justice suspended and withheld forever.

This general rule, that all persons interested must he made par-
ties, is, however, made to yield where necessary in the instance
either of plaintiff's or defendants; since the rigid enforcement of
it would lead to perpetual abatements, and in many cases amount
to an absolute denial of justice. In all such cases the rights of
the omitted parties are held to he established or bound by the de
cree; and although, in England, an inconvenience arises, as to the
omitted parties, where a specific performance, or a conveyance
may be required of all; London v. Richmond, 2 Vern. 422; Meux
v. Maltby, 2 Swan. 284; Newton v. Egmont, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep.
346; yet even that difficulty has been, in a great measure, removed
by onr Act of Assembly which declares, that in all cases where a
decree shall be made for a conveyance, release, or acquittance, and
the party shall neglect or refuse to comply therewith, such decree
shall stand, be considered, taken, and have the effect of the con-
veyance, release, or acquittance so ordered. 1785, ch. 72, s. 13;
1826, ch 159.

Hence, as it would be difficult or impracticable, and therefore is
*not necessary to bring all the co-obligors of the deceased 525
before the Court; it is manifest, that these principles can
derive im support from this rule which requires every one interested
to be made parties, to the end that complete justice may be done
among all.

But this general rule which requires each debtor, bound by a
joint and several obligation to be brought before the Court,
although it may, to a certain extent, be well founded as to cases
where a single creditor sues his living debtors only, or sues one of
his joint debtors together with the representatives of another, who
is dead, for the recovery of no more than his own particular debt;
yet it cannot be applied to a suit, the especial object of which is
to have the whole estate of the deceased sold for the payment of
his debts; or so much of it as may be necessary for that purpose.
A creditor's suit, or a bill which presents a case which requires to
be treated as a creditor's suit, does not profess to be a demand of
payment by a single creditor for himself alone; but is a call upon
the Court \o cause the assets, real and personal, of a deceased
debtor to be accounted for and administered in due course of law
for the benefit of all the creditors of the deceased. This is the
natore of a creditor's suit According to the English law as well an