388 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.

enforce payment, and thus to obstruct or pervert the addministration
of the assets, after a decree to account for that purpose, he may
be enjoined, and so compelled, to come here to obtain satisfac-
tion; (n) first, however, deducting the costs of the suit here,
which has been thus made to enure to his benefit, from the fund
brought in, and which may be thus exhausted by his lien, (o)
But, where the claim of a creditor, who voluntarily comes in under
the decree, is contested, the costs of such contest are not charged
upon the estate to the prejudice of other creditors, (p) If a mort-
gagee, a vendor, holding an equitable lien, or a judgment creditor,
having a general lien, fails or refuses to come in, the property may
be sold subject to his lien, leaving it unimpaired; so that he may
have the same remedy against the estate as before the decree and
sale, (q) But, although such a creditor cannot be compelled,
merely on the usual notice to creditors, to come in and receive
satisfaction in discharge of his lien, yet, any other creditor, upon
the general principles of the court in the administration of assets,
may, by an original, amended, or supplemental bill, make him a
party to a creditor's suit, so as to have his incumbrance cleared
away, and the surplus applied for the benefit of the general credi-
tors, (r) And this may be done, not only at the instance of any
one who is then an actual creditor of the deceased, but by one
who, from the peril in which he stands, as executor, administra-
tor, or surety, has a right to be substituted for, and to take the
place of an actual creditor. As where certain property was
charged by will with the payment of a particular debt, which the
devisee, taking under the will, failed to pay, the executor of the
devisor was allowed, by a bill quia timet, to compel the devisee to
pay in order to save the personalty of the devisor; (s) or where a
judgment had been obtained against the surety on a bond, such
surety, before he had paid any part of the debt, was permitted to
file a bill against the representatives of the deceased, and to have
the realty sold for the satisfaction of his principal's debt to save
himself harmless, (t)

(n) Sumner v. Kelly, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 398.—(o) Kenebel v. Scrafton, 13 Ves. 370;
Bluett v. Jessop, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 112; Winter v. Hicks, 5 Cond. Cha. Rep. 490.

—(p) Abell v. Screech, 10 Ves. 356; Watkins v. Maule, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 45;
Young v. Everest, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 499; Rowland v. Tucker, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 591.

—(g) Barrett v. Blake, 2 Ball. & Bea. 354.—(r) Greenwood v. Taylor, 4 Cond Cha.
Rep. 381; 2 Mad. Chan. 657; Millar v. Baker, 1 Bland, 147, note.—(s) Pue v. Dor-
sey, 1 Bland, 139, note.—(t) Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 193; Antrobus v. Davidson,
3 Merival, 570; Arthur v. The Attorney General, ante 246.