346 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.

should assume the administration of all the assets of the deceased
debtor, (m)

And there are likewise instances in which a creditor's suit may
be engrafted upon another suit; which, in its origin and object,
had no relation whatever to a case of debtor and creditor; or in
which the only object was to enforce a lien, such as a mortgage
or vendor's lien, for the payment of a single debt. As where a
mortgagee had filed a bill against the heirs of a mortgagor to obtain
a sale of the mortgaged realty for the payment of his debt; or
where a bill had been filed to obtain a partition of an intestate
debtor's real estate; or where the real estate of a deceased debtor
had been, or was about to be sold under the special provisions of
an act of assembly; (n) or where in any such case, a share of the
proceeds of sale was about to be awarded and paid to parties as
heirs or devisees of a deceased debtor, (o) any creditor of the
deceased may come in, by petition, for himself and on behalf of
the other creditors, without calling in his executor or administrator
as an additional party to such pending suit, and have the surplus,
or the whole proceeds of sale; or the share to which the deceased
debtor may be entitled; and which then remains subject to the
control of the court, applied in satisfaction of his debts; upon
which all the proceedings are taken together as forming one credi-
tor's suit, as to the whole, or the particular share, and are so
treated accordingly through all its subsequent stages, (p) The
object of the secondary proceeding, in such instances, being to
intercept the assets, and prevent their misapplication is, in effect,
a prayer for relief against the proceedings in the original suit; and
is a kind of engraftment of a scion of a different species upon a
then growing stock, (q)

(m) Bedford v. Leigh, 2 Dick. 707; Charles v. Andrews, 9 Mod. 153; Shephard
v, Lutwidge, 8 Ves. 29, note; Jarrett v. Rider, 9th July, 1829.

WASHINGTON COLLEGE v. GRAVES.—It was alleged, that the mortgaged real
estate was insufficient to pay the mortgage debt; and that the whole estate, real
and personal, of the deceased mortgagor, was insufficient to pay his debts. Where-
4 upon it was prayed, that the whole, including his unincumbered real estate, might
be sold to satisfy the mortgage and other creditors. The facts being admitted, the
case was considered and treated as a creditor's suit; and on the 26th of June, 1830,
Decreed accordingly, that the real estate in the proceedings mentioned be sold, &c.;
and that notice be given to the creditors of the deceased to file the vouchers of their
claims, &e. M. S.

(n) 1785, ch. 72, s. 12; 1816, ch. 154; 1818, ch. 133; 1831, eh. 311--(o)
Lewis v. Lewis, 27th April, 1829, M. S.—(p) Fenwick v. Laughlin, 1 Bland, 474;
Gaither v. Welch, 3 G. & J. 264.—(q) Park. His. Co. Cha. 506.