316 HAMMOND n. HAMMOND.

well for the benefit of creditors as of themselves; and yet the case
has been hitherto so conducted as if it were by positive allegation
and in its nature a creditor's suit.

The defendants have urged, that there is nothing in the plead -
ings, as amended and aided by the agreement filed on the 7th of
November last, which can warrant these plaintiffs in assuming the
position of creditors; or which can give them a right to have their
complaint considered as a creditor's suit, under which they could,
as has been done, give notice, in the usual manner, to the credi-
tors of Philip Hammond, deceased, to come in and participate in
the distribution of this fund. To answer this objection, and for
the purpose of obtaining a clear view of the whole subject, I shall
take this occasion to consider the nature of a creditor's suit more at
large, than the questions now presented, may seem to require.

The estate of a deceased person must be first applied to the pay-
ment of his debts, leaving the residue only to go, as directed by
his will, or as the law has provided in cases of intestacy. But as
the person who takes out administration of his estate, in most cases,
cannot know who are his creditors, and may not know who are his
next of kin; and the administration of his estate may be exposed
to great delay and embarrassment; the Court of Chancery has long
exercised a most wholesome jurisdiction, in such cases, for the
prevention of delay and embarrassment; and for the assistance and
protection of the representatives of the deceased, by assuming the
administration of his estate, (e) With these views; and, for the
purpose of securing the fund, and of doing equal justice to all, this
court will take upon itself, the general administration of the assets
of a deceased debtor, either at the instance of one or more of his
creditors, (f) or legatees, (g] or next of kin; (h) or on a bill
filed by an executor; (i) or a trustee of the testator's estate, for
direction or indemnity in the payment of debts. ( j) And it will,
in like manner, in some cases, assume the distribution of the estate

(e) David v. Frowd, 7 Cond. Chan. Rep. 8.—(f) Douglas v. Clay, 1 Dick. 393;
Paxton v. Douglas, 8 Ves. 520; Terrewest v. Featherby, 2 Meriv. 480; 1798, ch.
101, sub eh. 8, s. 7; 1802, ch. 101,—(g) Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183;
Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 544; Jackson u. Leaf, 1 Jac. and Wal. 229; Clarke v.
Ormonde, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 47.—(A) Waite v. Temple, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 162;
Greig v, Somerville, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 453; Conway v. Green, 1 H. & J. 151;
1718, ch. 5, s. 3; 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 14, s. 6.—(i) Perry v, Phelips, 10 Ves, 39.—
(j) Leech v. Leech, 1 Cha. Ca. 249; Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183.