HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 349

made a party, in order to obtain a decree against him; (5) so too,
where the executor is insolvent and has not the means to sue, or
will not act, a creditor's suit may be brought against him and
other persons accountable to the estate, (c) And where, after the
death of a debtor, his personal estate had passed into the hands of
executor or administrator, who died without accounting for
such assets, the executor or administrator of the deceased execu-
tor or administrator becoming thereby, as it were, a representative
of the first deceased debtor, in respect of the assets which had thus
come to the hands of his testator or intestate; and being so liable to
that extent, should be charged and made a party accordingly, to-
gether with the surviving executor, or the administrator de bonis
non of the first deceased; not, however, upon the ground, that an
executor of an executor is entitled, here as in England, to admi-
nistration de bonis non of the first deceased; (d) but because of
there being, in respect of such assets, a privity and a mediate
representation of, and indebtedness to the first deceased, (e)

In a creditor's bill against the representatives of a deceased
debtor, it was formerly not unusual to describe particularly the real
estate of which the deceased debtor died seized; but as it may, in
most cases, be impracticable for a creditor to do so, it has been
held to be unnecessary to set forth any description of the deceased's
real estate, (f) But it is usual, and in most cases necessary, in
such bills, to set out with a qui tam allegation, that " your orator,
A. B., of —— county, as well on behalf of himself, as of other
the creditors of C. D., late of —— county, deceased, who shall
come in and contribute to the expense of this suit, that the said
C. D. being, in his life, and at the time of his death, seized in fee
simple of a considerable real estate," &c. (g) Whence it would
seem, that the other creditors should always be called in to partici-
pate as co-plaintiffs; but when they do come in, they are thence-
forward considered as parties to the suit; (h) and may be regarded
as taking the position of either plaintiffs or defendants as their in-

(b) Elmslie v. M'Auley, 3 Bro. C. C. 624; Doran v. Simpson, 4 Ves. 651; Alsa-
ger v. Rowley, 6 Yes. 749; Benfield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 86.—(c) Burroughs v. El-
ton, 11 Ves. 29.—(d) 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 5, s. 6.—(e) 1816, ch. 203, s, 3; Wil-
liams v. Williams, 9 Mod. 299; Holland v. Prior, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 22.—(f) Mc-
Mechen v. Chase, 19th July, 1815, per Kilty, Chancellor, on demurrer for that cause.
-—(g) 2 Harr. Pra. Cha. 322; Wiliis, Plea. Eq. 220.—(h) Neve v. Weston, 3 Atk.
557; Hardeastle v. Chettle, 4 Bro. 163; Good v. Blewitt, 19 Ves. 338.
45 v.2