the plaintiff has a right to have it disposed of, the mortgagor could
not be called upon to pay the deficiency. Collet v. Wollaston, 3
Bro. C. C. 228; 1805, ch. 100; 1808, ch. 71; 1812, ch. 77. On the
contrary, instead of the mortgagor's having been divested of his
estate by an assignment which he cannot controvert, and so as to
leave him in no way liable; his equity of redemption alone, has
been taken into execution and sold; the fact and validity of which
sale he may deny, and put in issue by an action of ejectment, or
by a suit of equity of this kind, involving a decision upon the
right. Morgan v. Dawis, 2 H. & McH. 9; West v. Hughes, 1 H. &
J. 6; Purl v. Duvall, 5 H. & J. 77; Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J.
204; Fenwick v. Floyd, 1 H. & G, 172, Hence, it is essentially ne-
cessary, that this questionable title to the equity of redemption, as
derived from the judicial sale, should be entirely put to rest by
calling before the Court, as * well the mortgagor, as him who
683 claims as the purchaser, at that judicial sale.

As to the third ground, an account of the mortgage debt, and
the discovery in relation to it, to which the mortgagee may be
entitled. It is true, that under a bill to foreclose, the Court cannot,
after causing the mortgaged property to be sold, and the proceeds
of such a sale to be applied in satisfaction of the debt, go on to
decree, that the mortgagor shall pay the balance remaining unsa-
tisfied, by the proceeds of such sale. But although it cannot so
decree, and by its own process enforce complete satisfaction by
any further proceedings under the same bill, after the mortgaged
fund has been exhausted; Andrews v. Scotton, ante, 668; yet it can,
and must have an account stated, to ascertain the exact amount of
the mortgaged debt, before a sale can be ordered, or at least, be-
fore it can make any application of the proceeds of. the sale of the
mortgaged estate. In the stating of such an account, the mort-
gagor has a direct interest; because it fixes the amount of his in-
debtedness; and the mortgagee also has an interest in it, and in
the discovery in relation to it, which may be drawn from the mort-
gagor, because, in so far as the mortgaged property fails to pro-
duce satisfaction of the amount so shewn, the mortgagee may
again have recourse to his judgment at law, or avail himself of
any other proceeding, either at common law or in equity to en-
force payment of such unsatisfied balance; and therefore, upon
this third ground also, it is proper that the mortgagor should be
made a party defendant to this suit.

I have spoken of the rights and liabilities of the mortgagor, and
of the grounds upon which he should have been made a party to
this suit, supposing him to be now alive. He is dead; but the
same principles apply with equal force to his heirs; they stand in
his place to the extent of his interest in the mortgaged estate,
whatever it may be; and they have succeeded to his liability for
the debt so far as real assets may have descended to them; and