TESSIER v. WYSE.—3 BLAND. 41

should appear and defend. Upon which the Chancellor being fully
satisfied of the truth of such facts might order a sale of the real
estate, &c.; which if not sufficient to pay all the debts, the money
arising from the sale should be equally distributed among all the
creditors in proportion to their debts without any preference; and
upon any certificate of survey being made and returned in conse-
quence of an escheat warrant, any creditor of the deceased might
enter a caveat to the same, &c. 1785, ch. 78, s. 1. After the
passing of some private Acts to remove difficulties in cases of this
kind; 1789, ch. 33; 1792, ch. 44; it was, by another general Act
declared, that in case any person seised or possessed of land, or
having an equitable interest therein should die without leaving
any known heir or devisee, and without leaving a sufficient personal
estate for the payment of his debt's contracted within this State, or
with any of the citizens thereof, the Chancellor upon the application
of any such creditor might order the real estate to be be sold, &c.
1794, ch. 60, s. 3, C.

These legislative enactments, on a careful consideration of them,
it will be perceived, do, in effect, declare, that a creditor may,
where there are no heirs or devisees, proceed against the State
itself to obtain satisfaction from the realty of his deceased debtor
in the hands of the State. And this privilege has been granted
to creditors by the first of these laws, so far as it may not have
been virtually repealed by the last of them, upon the terms, if
there should not be enough to pay all, that the proceeds of sale
should be distributed in due proportion, without any preference;
and that none* but such creditors as are citizens of this
State; Corrie's Case, 2 Bland, 495; should be allowed to ^
come in and have the real estate sold for the payment of their debts
in the manner prescribed. These legislative provisions it is obvious
have relation to peculiar cases, to which the State is a party, and
do not in any way affect the rights of a creditor against the heirs
or devisees, executors or administrators of his deceased debtor.

From this review of the law in relation to the matter now under
consideration, it is therefore perfectly clear, even admitting that
the defendants have relied upon the fact, that the plaintiffs had
failed to allege and prove, that the personal estate of William Wyse
deceased, was insufficient to pay his debts, it can be of no avail to
them as a defence against the claim of these plaintiffs to obtain
satisfaction by a sale of the real estate of the deceased in their
hands; since, if it be true, that there is a sufficiency of personal
estate to pay the debts of the deceased, it rests with these heirs
alone to allege and shew that fact, and how that estate may be now
so applied for the saving of their own interests. But as these
heirs have failed to do so, the real estate in their hands must cer-
tainly be held liable, at least so far as the personal estate may be