384 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND,

sufficient to pay his debts; the personal credit having ceased, and
all hope of obtaining payment, by the personal exertions of the
debtor, having come to an end, the estate, as in cases of bank-
ruptcy in England, is treated as a dead fund, as a kind of ship-
wreck, in which there can only be a salvage of a part to each
creditor, (q) Under such circumstances, it has long been the
practice of this court, as the best method of settling the proportions
among the creditors, to have a statement made by the auditor, of
the aggregate amount of the principal and interest of their respective
claims, as of the day of the sale of the real estate, which, when
confirmed, operates as a judgment in favour of each from that day.
And, as, in all cases, where the estate is sold on a credit, the pur-
chase money is made to bear interest from the day of sale; the
aggregate amount, thus found due to each creditor, is that amount
upon which a proportional dividend of the proceeds of the estate is
- to be awarded to each, with a similar proportion of the interest
which may be paid on the purchase money. So that, where the
creditors of an insufficient estate, have been delayed by a sale for
their satisfaction on a credit, they may have the interest, on the divi-
dends of their respective claims, met and reimbursed by the inte-
rest arising from the purchase money of the estate sold, (r)

If any one of the creditors has received a part of his claim from
the estate of the debtor, he cannot be allowed to obtain any thing
more, until the other creditors have received satisfaction in the
same proportion; (s) but a mortgage creditor, after having ex-
hausted the mortgaged estate by a sale, may come in against the
other estate of his debtor for the deficiency, pari passu with the
other creditors, (t) This, however, does not extend so far as
to compel any creditor to bring back into hotchpot any payment
he may have fairly received, (u) An heir or devisee was allowed
formerly to retain, for the same reason, that an executor or admi-
nistrator was allowed to retain an amount equivalent to the satis-
faction of his debt, in preference to others, (w) But as it has been
declared, that the claim of an executor or administrator shall only

(q) Ex parts Bennet, 2 Atk. 527.—(r) Jacob v. Suffolk, Mosely 27; Neal v.
The Attorney-General, Mosely 247; Corrie v. Clarke, 1 Bland, 86, note; Dorsey v.
Hammond, 1 Bland, 468; Tyson v. Hollingworth, ante 333; Pattison v. Frazier,
ante 372.—(s) Sheppard v. Kent, 2 Vern. 435; The case of Sir Charles Cox, 3 P.
Will. 344, n.; Shiphard v. Lutwidge, 8 Ves. 29; Jennings v. Elster, 7 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 115,—(t) Tooke v. Hartley, 2 Bro. C. C. 126; Shiphard v. Lutwidge, 8 Ves.
29.—(u) Lowthian v. Hasel, 4 Bro, C. C. 168.—(w) Loomes v. Stotherd, 1 Cond.
Cha. Rep. 235; Nunn v. Barlow, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 301.