HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 345

the object of the bill is not merely to establish any existing priori-
ties among them as creditors, (j) A mortgagee or a vendor hold-
ing an equitable lien, claiming merely as such, has no common
interest with the creditors at large; and therefore, cannot be
allowed to represent them by suing on their behalf, and having
them called in to participate in a suit, the sole object of which is
to obtain the benefit of such a lien, by which the whole subject in
controversy is claimed, and may be entirely borne away, (k) As
where the plaintiff alleged, that he was the vendor of a tract of
land, for which a part of the purchase money was still due, which
land had descended to the defendants as heirs of the vendee; and
that the personal estate of the deceased purchaser was insufficient
to pay his debts. The truth of all which was admitted; and the
administrator by his answer prayed, that the balance of the pro-
ceeds of sale, after paying the plaintiffs, might be put into his
hands to be applied to the payment of the debts of the deceased.
But this prayer of the administrator was rejected; upon the
ground, that no sufficient foundation had been laid to authorize
the court to treat the case as a creditor's suit, and to assume the
administration of the assets of the deceased for the general benefit
of his creditors. (l)

But, in so far as a mortgagee or the holder of a vendor's lien
has a claim beyond the extent of such lien; because of the defi-
ciency of the premises to pay the debt; or because of some other
claim, in addition to such debt, which there is not a sufficiency of
personal estate to satisfy, he may, in respect of such claim, sus-
tain a creditor's suit by thus blending two distinct causes of suit,
in only one of which the other creditors have a common interest.
As where a vendor, in addition to a balance of the purchase
money, set forth a large claim as due to him on another account,
to pay which he alleged, that the personal estate of the deceased
was insufficient; the case was treated as a creditor's suit; because,
as regarded such additional claim the plaintiff had an interest in
common with the other creditors who he undertook to represent;
and for whose general benefit it was necessary that the court *

(j) Newton v. Egmont, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 265; Calvert on Parties, 220.—(k)
Sumner v. Kelly, 2 Scho. and Lefr. 398; Burney v. Morgan, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep.
185; Gray v. Chaplin, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 454; David v. Grahame, 2 H. & G. 94.—
(l) Ellicott v. Welch, ante 242.