344 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.

granted to infants, of allowing the parol to demur until they
attained their full age, has been totally abolished as regards credi-
tors5 suits in equity; (c) since the Chancellor has been thereby
directed, on the indebtedness of the deceased ancestor or devisor
being established, and the insufficiency of his personalty being
made to appear, to cause his real estate to be sold and conveyed
by a trustee to the purchaser; (d) notwithstanding the minority of
the heirs or devisees, (e) And consequently, the pretext, that of
allowing the parol to demur, for depriving the creditors of the
rents and profits of their deceased debtor's real estate in favour of
his infant heirs or devisees, having been thus abrogated, an account
of such rents and profits may now be called for from the infant as
well as from the adult heirs and devisees of a deceased debtor; (f)
upon the same ground, that his executor or administrator may
be made to account for the increase and profits of his personal
estate, (g) So that in all cases, where it appears that the realty
must be responsible, a receiver may be put upon it, where neces-
sary, for the purpose of taking care of its rents and profits for the
benefit of the creditors, (h)

To enable a creditor to sue on behalf of himself and all others
who stand in the same relation with him to the subject of the suit,
it must appear, that the relief sought by him is, in its nature, bene-
ficial to all those whom he undertakes to represent; (i) and that

paid to each proper creditor of Solomon Clayton. Whether or not, the money can
be recovered from Ringgold, the Chancellor will not give his opinion.

In obedience to this order, the auditor made and reported a statement distributing
the proceeds accordingly; upon which the case was again brought before the court.

14th March, 1805.—HANSON, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the money arising from
the sale; great part whereof hath been long in the trustee's hands ready to be paid,
be, and it is hereby directed to be applied according to the above statement; and that
the receipts in writing of any person entitled to receive the said money, be admitted
here in the place of so much money; and that, under the circumstances of the case,
the trustee Peter Edmonson, be not answerable for any interest which he had not
received from a purchaser. Provided nevertheless, that he without reasonable delay
either deposite the said principal money in court, or receipts in writing as aforesaid
for money already paid, or to be paid agreeably to the foregoing statement.

(c) Boucher v. Bradford, ante 222.—(d) 1785, ch. 72, s.7.—(e) Powys v. Mans-
fiield, 9 Cond. Cha. Rep. 445.—(/) Co. Litt. 113, a. 236, a; Lancaster t?. Thorn-
ton, 2 Burr, 1031; Yates v. Compton, 2 P. Will. 311; Bedford v. Leigh, 2 Dick.
709; Silk v. Prime, 1 Bro. C. C. 140, note; Curtis v. Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 633;
1798, ch. 101, sub. ch. 12, s. 9.~-(g) Will. Exrs. 1012.—(h) Sweet v. Partridge,
2 Dick. 606; Jones v. Pugh, 8 Ves. 71.—(t) Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397; S. C.
19 Ves. 836; Burney v. Morgan, 1 Cond. Ch. Rep. 185; Gray v. Chaplin, 1 Cond.
Cha. Rep. 451; Spittal v. Smith, 5 Cond. Cha. Rep. 275.