92 STRIKE'S CASE.

or waives them, or there has been a judgment against him; still
the heir or devisee may make such objections in defence of the
real assets. And where the executor and some of the heirs waive
them; yet, any other of the heirs or devisees may alone make
them in defence of the whole of the real assets, as was done
in the case of Wm. Frazier's estate in this court.(j) It seems to

(j) EDMONDSON v. FRAZIER.—This bill was brought by creditors to subject
the real estate of the deceased debtor to the payment of his debts. The estate was
sold accordingly under a decree in the usual form. The auditor, in his report of the
29th January, 1822, says, "the act of limitations, which, as a bar to the creditors'
claims, is relied upon by the distributees only, the auditor is not satisfied they are
entitled, under the circumstances, to the benefit of it." This report was excepted
to by the distributees on this and other accounts.

10th April, 1822.—JOHNSON, Chancellor.—Exceptions to the auditor's report are
filed. The complainants except to that part of the auditor's report unfavorable to
the claim of Nicholas Hammond, which claim is founded on a bond executed by one
John Mace, and William Frazier, the above deceased, as security. The auditor, in
conformity with the usual course of the court, would not allow the claim without
evidence to establish the allegation in the bill, that Mace, the principal debtor, was
insolvent. A court of equity when it interposes, and adjusts the relative obligations
of contracts and agreements in which more than two parties are concerned, calls
them all before the court; that a complete and final adjustment may take place, and
each be compelled to pay his just portion; and thereby the creditor draws from
each, being solvent, what equitably ought finally to be drawn from him. It will not
compel the one, both of the debtors being solvent, to pay the whole, and turn him
over to his co-security to restore the one half. When, therefore, estates are sold to
pay debts, and in which the interests of minors are generally deeply involved, it
becomes the duty of the court, to see, that no claim be allowed, in which the
deceased, with others, stands indebted, without satisfactory proof being produced,
that the other persons joined in the obligation were insolvent. But as that proof is
now produced in support of the claim No. 4, the same is hereby allowed, and the
trustee is directed to pay the same, with a due portion of the interest received, or
that shall be received.

Exceptions are filed on the behalf of Wm. R. Stewart and wife, of Samuel Wright
and Mary Elizabeth Wright, to the claim distinguished by No. 3. This claim, by
the answer of those who are only interested in its rejection, under the decree, is
strongly contested, and the act of limitations relied on as a bar to the recovery. The
answer of one defendant, in chancery, can never implicate the interest of a co-
defendant; but more especially, when the person, so answering, is not interested in
the matter in controversy. The answer, therefore, of Wm. Steward's (Frazier's)
widow, and executrix, who had exhausted the personal funds, never can be received
to charge the real. They can only be affected by the answer of those interested in
them, or by the exhibition of such proofs as will bind them. The claim No. 3, rests
on a bond dated 7th February, 1790; and on an open account, about the same time.
The bill in this cause was filed on 23d October, 1815, more than twenty-five years
after the bond; which was made payable forthwith, A sufficient length of time has
elapsed to presume payment. Nor is there any evidence in the cause to remove the
presumption. The exception taken to the claim No. 3, is therefore supported, and
the claim is hereby rejected. The auditor is directed to re-state the account, rejecting
the said claim.