518 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.—2 BLAND.

& J. Miller, assignees of James Taylor, designated by the auditor
as No. 44, which appears to have been a debt contracted since the
death of Beale M. Worthington, most therefore be rejected.

When I came here, I found many instances of creditor's bills
against the heirs of the deceased debtors alone, without making
his executor or administrator a party; indeed, it seemed to have
been considered by many as the correct course of the Court. Har-
wood v. Rawlings, 4 H, J. 126; Duvall v. Green, 4 H, & J. 270;
Bond v. Bond, ante, 353; Flemming v. Castle, ante, 355; Dorsey v.
Cooke, ante, 526; Emory v. Seth, ante, 541. It was evidently at-
tended with inconvenience, as is exemplified in this case. But by
a decision of the Court of the last resort, reported and published
since this bill was filed, and only a short time, before this decree
for a sale was passed; it has been finally and correctly settled, as
a general rule, that the personal representative, as well as the
heirs and devisees; must always be made a party. Tyler v. Bowie,
4 H. & J. 333. Here the administrator has not been made a
party, and on that account, this decree might have been withheld
or reversed, had the objection been made in time.

It appears, from the report of the auditor that there are some
personal assets to be distributed. It is certain, that those assets
must be first administered in due course of law and then what
remains due, after they have been exhausted, must be paid from the
real assets, so far as they will go, to hose who have not been sat-
isfied in due proportion, or whose claims have been unjustly re-
jected by the administrator.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the said exceptions to the audi-
tor's report, and the objections stated by the auditor to any claim.
* so far as the same may be in any manner at variance with
544 the principles herein laid down for the government of
this Court be, and the same are hereby overruled. And it is
further ordered, that this case be, and the same is hereby referred
to the auditor with directions to state a final account accordingly.

After which, the auditor filed his report made up as of the 26th of
June, 1830, in which he says, that in obedience to this order he
had examined the proceedings; that an extract from the second
account passed by the administrator had been lately filed, from
which it appeared, that dividends of the personal estate had been
allowed on claims Nos, 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 31, 32. 33, 35, 37, and
43. That he had, therefore, re-stated those claims, and also
staced an additional claim, No. 45, lately exhibited. That he had
also stated au account between the estate of the deceased and the
trustee, in which the proceeds of the sale were applied to the pay-
ment of the trustee's allowance for commission and expenses, costs
of suit, and dividends on the claims stated, excluding Nos. 39. 40.