HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 329

estates held by infant heirs or devisees shall be extended to de-
fendants of full age. (o)

full age, hath heretofore been considered doubtful. In fact, there has been no such
decree in this court. And in one case, where creditors, several years since, filed a
bill against the heir of full age, who, by his answer, expressed his willingness to
have the land sold for paying all the creditors, the Chancellor refused to execute the
power. He has since often reflected on the subject, and thought that, in that case,
he might be wrong. For, inasmuch as an executor or administrator is suable in this
court, on the ground of discovery, and land is, in this state, liable for all debts, as
well as the personal estate, there seems no reason wherefore an heir should not be
sued on the same ground. Indeed, this very case shews the propriety of this court
exercising the jurisdiction. Here is a dispute between the executor of one partner
and the administrator of the other partner, and an heir and devisee, as well as
between them all and the creditors: and if the creditors were referred to a remedy
at law, it would be almost, if not altogether, impracticable to obtain it. But here, if
the Chancellor be right in his present opinion, the remedy is easily attainable; all par-
ties being compellable to account, in order to shew what is the amount of real and
personal assets, as well as to shew what are the just claims against the deceased;
and the interference of this court being obviously to the advantage of all parties.

It is Decreed, that the defendant James Carey, shall account for the personal assets
in his hands, as executor of Francis McKenna, surviving partner of Parkin &
McKenna, both in the right of the said McKenna alone, and of McKenna as sur-
viving partner aforesaid. That the said Susannah Goodwin, as administratrix, with
the will annexed, of Thomas Parkin, shall account for the assets in her hands. That
the auditor of this court shall state the said accounts, &c. He shall state the several
claims of the complainants, &c.

And inasmuch as it appears that the claims of the complainants, although not yet
precisely ascertained, will require a sale of the real estate in the bill mentioned, and
the complainants have expressed their wish and consent, that the Chancellor decree
an immediate sale; it is further Decreed, that the said two parts of the said two tracts
of land, together with the improvements thereon, be sold; that Samuel Chase, jun.
be and he is hereby appointed trustee for the said sale, &c. &c.

The trustee, on the 15th of May, 1804, made sales of parts of the real estate, as
directed by this decree; which sales, with the consent of the parties, were, on the
11th of October, 1804, finally confirmed; and the trustee was directed to give notice,
by advertisement, to the creditors of Thomas Parkin, deceased, and of Parkin &
McKenna, to file the vouchers of their claims in the chancery office, on or before the
15th of February then next. After which, the auditor reported a statement of the
claims which had been brought in and established, with interest upon each up to the
day of sale, leaving a large deficiency in the proceeds of sale. Upon which, a fur-
ther sale was ordered.

On the 19th of November, 1804, the defendants Hollingsworth and wife, by their
petition, stated that the decree had been passed in their absence; that they had no
knowledge of the dormant claims against the testator Parkin; that the personal
estate was sufficient to pay all; and that the last order for a further sale had been
.obtained by surprise. Whereupon they prayed to be heard; and that no further
sale might be made, &c.

20th November, 1804.—HANSON, Chancellor— It is true that the decree was passed

(o) 1818, ch. 193, s. 2.