34 TESSIER v. WYSE.—3 BLAND.

no previous legislative enactment had expressly authorized a cre-
ditor to have his debtor's lands taken in execution and sold for
the payment of a debt; although it is said that the Court of Chan-
cery would, under some circumstances, accelerate the payment of the
debt by ordering a sale of a moiety, or so much as might have been
extended at law. Stileman, v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 609; S. C. Amb. 16.
This statute removed all difficulty, in that respect, by putting
simple contract and bond creditors upon the same footing, and by
allowing the real estate to be seized and sold for the satisfaction
of debt in like manner as personal estate.

Under this law it seems, however, to have been always consid-
ered here, that an heir should not be held liable to an action at
common law by a simple contract creditor, merely in respect of
the real estate descended, Lodge v. Hurray, I H. & J. 499; Gist v.
Cockey, 7 H. & J. 140, and therefore, as the statute had expressly
declared, that the real estate should be liable to all debts in like
manner as real estates were by the law of England liable to the
the satisfaction of debts due by bonds, it necessarily followed, that
simple contract creditors could only obtain satisfaction from the
real estate of their debtor, in the hands of his heirs or devisees,
by a creditor's bill in Chancery, governed by rules here similar to
those by which a creditor's bill by a bond creditor in England
were regulated, and as this statute was avowedly made for the
benefit of creditors, to enlarge, not to narrow their remedy, it
must have left their title and their right to enforce payment, at
their election, from the real or the personal estate, unimpaired and
unprejudiced by any equity which then existed only between the
real and personal representatives of the deceased: or which arose
only out of the mode of administering the estate for the benefit of
the heirs * alone. Cox v. Callahan, 2 Bland, 51. note:

46 Long v. Baker, 2 Haywood, 128. And as this statute de-
prived infants of none of their privileges, it followed, that if any
one of the claimants of the teal estate proposed to be charged, was
a minor, the parol should demur for the benefit of all until he at-
tained his foil age. So too, as to all other particulars, not ex-
pressly or necessarily embraced by this statute, the then existing
law remained in all respects unaltered.

After which it was declared by an Act of Assembly, that per-
sons under age seized of any lands chargeable with the payment
of money; and therefore, liable to a decree for a sale, should by
direction of the Court of Chancery, on the petition of the person
entitled to any money with the payment whereof the said lands
were chargeable, convey and assure such lands in such manner as
the Court should direct to any other person; and such conveyance
should be as good and effectual as if such infants were at the time
of full age; provided, that no direction, as aforesaid, should be
given in case of any infants seized of any lands subject to the