POST v. MACKALL.—3 BLAND. 489

under the decree, are received in the shape, most usually, of ex-
ceptions made, as in this instance, upon which the Court looks
only at the true nature and substance of the objection.

But it has been laid down, that if a creditor has obtained an
absolute judgment against the executor or administrator, although
it must be deemed conclusive of a sufficiency of personal assets,
as between the creditor and the executor or administrator; yet it
shall not be so held as between the creditor and the heir or de-
visee, so as to exonerate the real estate; but that an insufficiency
of the personalty may be shewn by the creditor for the purpose of
letting himself in upon the realty. The State v. Cox, 2 H. & G.
379; Iglehart v. The State, 2 G. & J. 245; Gaither v. Welch, 3 G. &
J. 259; Ellicott v. Welch, 2 Bland, 247. And it has also been laid
down, that a plea of the Statute of Limitations shall only enure
to the benefit of him who pleads it under a creditor's bill; and
consequently, in this case, where the Statute of Limitations can
be sustained as a bar to any claim, it can only be allowed so to
operate as to exclude them from coming in conflict with, or receiv-
ing any thing to the prejudice of the claim of him by whom the
Statute of Limitations was pleaded, (h)

(h) MCCORMICK v. GIBSON.—This bill was filed, on the 19th of January,
1824, by James McCormick, Jr., against Fayette Gibson, Edward R. Gibson,
Nancy Gibson, Rebecca Gibson, Thomas P. Bennett and Harriet his wife,
Joseph W. Reynolds and Ann his wife. James Tilton and Frances his wife,
Clara Tilton, Nehemiah Tilton, Rigby Hopkins, John W. Blake, Edward
Lloyd, and the President, Directors and Company of the Farmers Bank of
Maryland.

The object of the bill was to have the real estate of Jacob Gibson, deceased,
sold, because of the insufficiency of his personal estate, for the payment of
the amount then due on a promissory note given by him for 82,500, which
had. by several endorsements, passed into the hands of the plaintiff. On the
10th of November, 1824. the defendant James Tilton. put in his answer. On
the 27th of September, 1824, the defendant Edward Lloyd, filed his answer.
On the 12th of October. 1824. the bank made answer, stating its defence;
and shewing, that it held, as a security for its claim, a mortgage given by
the deceased, of his tract of land called Marengo: but the deed of mortgage
contained no relinquishment of the right of dower of the wife of the
grantor; nor any personal covenant for the payment of the money

On the 4th of "February. Ib25. the defendants Bennett and wife, filed their
answer, in which, among other things, they say. "that they have always
well hoped and believed, that the personal estate of the said Jacob Gibson.
together with the proceeds of the sales of the property by him devised to
be sold, and the rents and profits of the real estate, as directed by the last
will and testament of the said Jacob Gibson. to be applied towards the pay-
ment of his debts, would have been amply sufficient to discharge the

same. and all expenses of administration, had the administration thereof
been conducted according to the intentions of the said Jacob Gibson as
expressed in his said will: but these defendants allege and say. that the

said personal estate of the said Jacob Gibson. or the greater part thereof.
was retained and nor sold till nearly two years, after his death, and thereby