HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 361

although the name of such creditor was, without his consent, in-
serted in the bill filed on behalf of all the creditors of the testa-
tor; (t) or to restrain an action brought by a lessor against an
executor, as executor, for a breach of covenant to repair; since the
fact of a breach, and the damages may be as well ascertained by the
auditor as by a jury, (u) And the like injunction may be obtained,
not only where the bill is filed by creditors; but also where it is filed
by an executor to have the directions of the court for the execution
of the will, and to be indemnified; (w) or for the same purposes,
by trustees of the testator's estate; (x) or where it is filed by
a residuary or other legatee; (y) and the injunction may be ob-
tained on the application of an executor, where the bill is filed by
creditors; (z) or by trustees; (a) or on the application of a credi-
tor plaintiff, the bill being filed by creditors against the execu-
tor; (b) or on the application of a legatee, by whom the bill is filed
against the executor, (c)

But, in granting an injunction, in cases of this kind, in order to
protect the real or personal representatives from pressure at law, the
court is always careful not to exclude creditors, proceeding at law,
from the benefit of their diligence, by which they have established
a right to be satisfied, either out of the assets of the deceased, or
de bonis propriis of the representative; a right which, in some
cases, the conduct of the representative will confer on them, and in
others their activity; and will not indulge creditors who have lain
by to the extent of depriving the diligent of the fruits of their dili-
gence, (d) And, therefore, an injunction may be obtained to shel-
ter assets against execution under a judgment against the heir or
executor; (e) as where after a decree to account, a creditor pro-
ceeds to trial at law, and there obtains a verdict; (f) or where

Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 47; Lord v. Wormleighton, 4 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 67; Fielden v. Fielden, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 128; Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan.
529; Martin v. Martin, 1 Ves. 211; Farnham v. Burroughs, 1 Dick. 63.—-(t) Doug-
las v. Clay, 1 Dick. 393; Perry v. Phelips, 10 Ves. 40.—(u) Button v, Mashiter, 2
Cond. Cha. Rep. 525.—(w) Rush v. Higgs, 4 Ves. 638.—(a:) Brooks v. Reynolds,
1 Bro. C. C, 183.—(y) Jackson v. Leaf, 1 Jack. & Wal. 231,—(z) Clarke v. Or-
monde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 54.—(a) Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro, C. C. 183.—
(b) Terrewest v. Featherby, 2 Meriv. 482, n.—(c) Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 54; Drewry v. Tbacker, 3 Swan. 544.—(d) Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 544;
Fielden v. Fielden, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 128; Price v. Evans, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 284;
Kent v. Kckering, 7 Cond. Cha. Rep. 541.—(e) Terrewest v. Featherby, 2 Meriv.
480; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 54; Price v. Evans, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep.
234.—(f) Lord v. Wormleighton, 4 Cond. Cba. Rep. 67.