350 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.

terests or the nature of the case may require, (i) And as it must
appear, in all cases, where a creditor undertakes, by a creditor's
suit, to represent the interests of others, that the relief sought is,
in its nature, beneficial to those others, it follows, that where a
creditor may sue either for his own claim alone, or as well in behalf
of others as of himself, that he should, by an express averment in
his bill, make his election to sue in the one way or the other; (j)
and where he has sued merely in his own name, but can only
obtain the relief he seeks by suing as well in behalf of the other
creditors as himself, his bill must be amended to that effect before
or at the hearing, (k) But, in general, it is the nature of the case
which gives to it the character of a creditor's suit; for an allega-
tion in the bill, that the plaintiff sues as well for himself as other
creditors, will not alone justify its being treated as a creditor's suit
where the case does not warrant it; nor will the omission of such
an allegation prevent its being so considered, where the nature of
the case is such as to require the creditors to be called in. (l)

The establishment of the whole, or a part, of the claims of all,
or of some one or more of the originally suing creditors, is the first
point to be determined. In all cases, it is indispensably necessary
that the plaintiff should sustain the facts of his case, either by
proof, or by the admission of his opponents; for, otherwise he can
have no standing in court, nor any light to sue, whatever may be
the law arising out of such facts. If, therefore, the claim of the
plaintiff be denied by all, or any one of the defendants, it must be
proved, (m)

A guardian ad litem of an infant defendant, being appointed by
the court for the purpose of having the proceedings substantiated
against him, so that justice may be done to the plaintiff, (n) like a
solicitor, becomes thereby so far one of the guardians of the Its,
that he is bound to have it conducted with as much fairness and
benefit to the infant as the nature of things will permit, (o) It is

(t) Finch v. Winehelsea, 1 P. Will. 281, Leigh v. Thomas, 2 Ves. 313; Mc-
Mechen v. Chase, 1 Bland, 85, note; Williamson v, Wilson, 1 Bland, 433.—(j) Bald-
win v. Lawrence, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 331.—(k) Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397; John-
son v. Compton, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 20.—(l) Shepherd v. Kent, Prec. Cha. 190; S.
C.2 Vern,435; Martin v. Martin, 1 Ves. 214; Anonymous, 3 Atk. 572; Strike's
case, 1 Bland, 84; Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland, 430.—(m) Lingan v. Henderson,
1 Bland, 236; Tyson v. Hollingsworth, ante 327, note; Hindrnan v. Clayton, ante 337,
note—(n) Beauraine v. Beauraine, 4 Eccle, Rep. 456; Boraine's case, 16 Ves.
346.-(o) Co. Lilt. 88, note 70, and 135; Taylor v. Atwood, 2 P. Will. 643, note 1 ;
Snowden v. Snowden, 1 Bland, 552.