HAMMOND v. HAMMOND. 363

it, may order him to make affidavit of the amount, and to bring
into court that, if any, which he so admits to be in his hands.
Yet it is not an absolute rule of the court to refuse an injunction,
unless there is an affidavit stating the assets in the hands of the
personal representative. Or, should a case arise, of assets wasted
by a personal representative, from the neglect of the solicitor, by
whom the suit was conducted, the court would hold him respon-
sible; (k) or should there be any improper delay by the original
plaintiff, any one, who has been allowed to come in as a creditor
or party, may be permitted to take his place, and prosecute the
suit. (l) For, although a plaintiff, who sues on behalf of himself
and all other persons of the same class, as he acts upon his own
mere motion, and at his own expense, retains the absolute dominion
of the suit, until another has been admitted as a co-plaintiff, or
until a decree to account, and may dismiss the bill at his pleasure;
yet, after another has been admitted as a co-plaintiff, or a decree
has been passed, he cannot, by his conduct, deprive other persons
of the same class, who thus become actors, of the benefit of the suit
if they think proper to prosecute it. (m)

I am, therefore, of opinion, that this is, in effect, and may pro-
perly be considered as a creditor's suit; although it is not expressly
alleged to have been instituted for the benefit as well of the credi-
tors of the testator, as of these plaintiffs; and that the order di-
recting notice to be given to the creditors of the late Philip Ham-
mond to bring in their claims, was, in every respect, proper; and
must have the effect and operation of allowing a satisfaction to be
awarded to those creditors who shall come in as thus warned, and
of making a distribution of the residue of the estate among the re-
spective claimants. And, moreover, that the injunction granted on
the 29th of September last, to prevent the creditor, Ridgely, from
proceeding at law on the judgment he had obtained against these
executors, was proper and well warranted by the nature of the case.
In order to ascertain who are creditors, and also, where neces-
sary, who are the next of kin of the deceased, the court directs
public notice to be given by advertisements in newspapers, or

(k) Paxton v Douglas, 8 Ves. 520; Gilpin V. Southampton, 18 Ves. 469; Drewry
v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 544; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 54.—(I) Creuze
v. Hunter, 2 Ves. jun. 165; Sims v. Ridge, 3 Meriv. 458; Powell v. Wallworth, 2
Mad. Rep. 183; Edmunds v. Acland, 5 Mad. 31.—(m) Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves.
602; Dyott v. Andertcm, 3 Ves. & Bea. 177; Handford v, Storie, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep.
414 , Strike's Case, 1 Bland, 85.