HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 317

and effects of a living insolvent debtor among his creditors, (k)
The foundation upon which this jurisdiction seems to rest, is the
principle, that equality is equity; and that its proper application
requires the interposition of the peculiar powers of a Court of
Chancery, (1) as well for the benefit of creditors, as for the protec-
tion of the representatives of the deceased debtor; (m) either be-
cause the assets of the deceased are, or may, if not placed in safety
and correctly administered, be insufficient to satisfy all; or because
it is necessary for the legatees, or secondary claimants, who can
obtain nothing until the creditors, or primary claimants or incum-
brances have been first called in and satisfied; (n) or because the
debtor, though alive, being insolvent, has no more than a certain
amount to be distributed rateably among his creditors; or has by a
deed of composition specially appropriated all his estate and effects
for the satisfaction of all his creditors, who all come in accord-
ingly; (o) which property is likely to be misapplied, or wasted by
• the debtor or holder of it; or that the parties to the deed of com-
position are too numerous to be made parties to such suit, (p)
The sole or principal object of bills in equity for any of these pur-
poses being the satisfaction of creditors, they are emphatically
called creditors' suits; and are, for the most part, governed by
rules common to them all. (q)

By the common law, lands in the hands of the heir, were liable to
bond creditors only, where the heir was specially bound; and even
to that extent, as they had no lien upon the real estate descended,
the heir was only personally liable, in respect of and to the value
of the real assets descended; and, therefore, a bond creditor could
make no claim against such real estate in the hands of a bona fide
purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, (r) But
even a bond creditor could not recover his debt of the heir, if he

(k) Atherton v. Worth, 1 Dick. 375; Downes v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 206; Weld v.
Bonham, 1 Cond. Cha, Rep, 361; Gray v. Chaplin, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 454 \ New-
ton v. Egmont, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 265; Strike's case, 1 Bland, 94; Williamson v.
Wilson, 1 Bland, 430.—(1) Martin v. Martin, 1 Ves. 211.—(m) Kenyon v. Wor-
thington, 2 Dick. 669; Perry v. Phelips, 10 Ves. 40; Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan.
543.—(n) Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 47.—(o) Atherton v. Worth, 1
Dick. 375.—(p) Downes v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 206; Weld v. Bonham, 1 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 361; Gray v. Chaplin, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 451; Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland
430.—(q) It has been provided by a late act of assembly, that in certain cases, a
creditor's bill may be filed against a corporation, 1832, eh. 306, s. 4.—(r) 1 Eq. Ca.
Abr. 149; Coleman v. Winch, 1 P. Will. 777; Mathews v. Jones, 2 Anstr. 506;
Craig v. Baker, ante 238.

41 v.2