366 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND

annexed as is required for authenticating such a claim in the
Orphans Court, (t) The meaning of which practice is, that a
person should not come here, and claim a debt without giving that
assurance, that it is due, which arises from his affidavit; which also,
if the debt be contested, affords a protection against the conclu-
sion from other evidence, that it is due, when the contrary may be
within the knowledge of the party himself; (u) and moreover,
because of its being proper to follow the rule prescribed for the
Orphans Court, under similar circumstances, in order that there
may be a consistency in the administration of justice. But if the
claim be contested, as it may, by a plaintiff, a defendant, or any
one who has been allowed to come in, and whose interest may be
affected by it, no attention is to be given to the affidavit, the claim
must be established by full proof as on issue joined before a jury;
or it will be rejected. The admission of, or even a judgment
against an executor or administrator can be of no avail against the
heir or devisee, (w) And if all the original parties to the suit
should waive the statute of limitations, still it may be relied on by
any one who comes in, and may have an interest to protect by
relying on the statute, (x)

In general no claim can be considered as a debt due by the de-
ceased; and, as such, entitled to be paid out of his estate, but that
which he owed at the time of his death, and was then, or there-
after payable; and the balance only of such a claim, for which the
deceased was then liable, is the amount to be satisfied in whole, or
in due proportion, (y) Where the assets are sufficient to pay all
the creditors of the deceased; or where there is an ample solvent
fund, it cannot be necessary to attend to the order in which the
debts are satisfied, or to adjust any apportionment among them;
since nothing can be awarded to the next of kin or legatees, heirs
or devisees of the deceased, or to the debtor himself until all his
creditors have been satisfied to the full amount of their respective
claims, principal and interest; for if a creditor is entitled to any
interest it is as much a debt as the capital itself, (z)

(t) 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 9.—(u) Fladong v. Winter, 19 Ves. 199.—(w) Put-
Bam v. Bates, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 355; Dorsey v. Hammond, 1 Bland, 470.—(x)
Shewen v. Vanderhorst, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 458; S. C. 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 403;
Strike's Case, 1 Bland, 91.—(y) As to annuities, William's Case, post. 3 vol.—(z)
Bromley v. Goodere, 1 Atk. 75; Rowe v. Bant, 1 Dick. 150; Lloyd v. Williams, 2 Atk.
111; Ex parte Morris, 3 Bro. C. C. 79; Ex parte Champion, 3 Bro. C. C. 436; Ex
parte Mills, 2 Ves. jun. 295; Ex parte Clarke, 4 Ves. 677; Ex parte Reeve, 9 Ves.