that too, according to our law, whether it be considered as a sim-
ple contract or specialty debt, so that if the mortgaged fund should
turn out to be insufficient, the plaintiff may apply to amend the
bill by making it a bill in behalf of herself and the other creditors
of the intestate Robert Lee, and thereby come at the assets so de-
scended; Brocklehurst v. Jessop, 10 Cond. Cha. Rep. 136; and for
aught that appears, there may be abundance * in their hands
to satisfy the whole of this claim should the mortgaged pro- 684
perty be found deficient.

These heirs then, are properly here in respect to an interest
which enures to them by reason of the application of the proceeds
of the sale of the equity of redemption to the extinguishment of
the incumbrance; and also in regard to the title to the equity
of redemption itself which may here, or otherwise be drawn in
question by them; ahd moreover for the purpose of having an
account taken of the mortgaged debt; and of making discoveries
in relation to it; and therefore I shall over-rule their demurrers.

It is not necessary to make the personal representative of the
mortgagor a party to a bill to foreclose, or to sell; because the
plaintiff need only make him a party who holds the equity; and
the mortgagee is not bound to intermeddle with the personal es-
tate, or to run into an account of it; and if the heir would have
the benefit of any payment made by the mortgagor or his executor
or administrator, he must prove it. Powell Mort. 968. This plain-
tiff could not, therefore have been required to state, as she has
done in her bill, or to prove, that no letters testamentary or of ad-
ministration had been granted of the personal estate of Robert
Lee, deceased, the mortgagor; and consequently, that allegation *
of the bill may be passed over as mere surplusage.

But this is a bill by the administratrix of the mortgagee to ob-
tain payment of the debt, as she specially prays, by a sale of the
mortgaged estate; and the suit may terminate in a redemption; in
a mere foreclosure: or in a sale of the mortgaged property. From
the nature of the case therefore it is indispensably necessary, that
all persons should be made parties to it whose rights may be in-
volved by either of those alternatives; or who may be called on to
execute a conveyance, or who should be bound by a decree term-
inating in either of those modes, in favor of a purchaser under a
decree for a sale, or in any other way.

It has always been held, that upon the death of the mortgagee,
his heir cannot be allowed to exhibit a bill to foreclose without
making his executor or administrator also a party, who may have
a right to the mortgage money; Freak v. Hearsey, 1 Cha. Ca. 51;
S. C. 2 Freem. 180; 8. C. Nelson, 93; and it is now settled, on the
other hand, that, in such case, the executor or administrator of the
mortgagee cannot alone bring a bill to forclose without making