518 WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON.

report unfavourable to the claim of Nicholas Hammond, which claim
is founded on a bond executed by one John Mace and William
Frazier, the above deceased, as security. The auditor, in con-
formity with the usual course of the court, would not allow the
claim without evidence to establish the allegation in the bill, that
.Mace, the principal debtor, was insolvent. A court of equity,
when it interposes and adjusts the relative obligations of contracts
and agreements, in which more than two parties are concerned,
calls them all before the court; that a complete and final adjust-
ment may take place, and each be compelled to pay his just por-
tion; and thereby, the creditor draws from each, being solvent,
what equitably ought finally to be drawn from him. It will not
compel the one, both of the debtors being solvent, to pay the
whole, and turn him over to his co-security to restore one-half.
When, therefore, estates are sold to pay debts; and in which the
interests of minors are generally deeply involved, it becomes the
duty of the court to see that no claim be allowed, in which the
deceased, with others, stands indebted, without satisfactory proof
being produced, that the other persons joined in the obligation,
were insolvent. But as that proof is now produced in support of
the claim No. 4, the same is hereby allowed.' (f)

From these adjudications it appears, that the first position taken
in support of these principles, in relation to the administration of
the real assets of the deceased debtor, is, that this court may, in
its discretion, withhold from the creditor, the relief he asks, alto-
gether, in favour of an infant heir or devisee; and therefore, does
no wrong in granting relief upon terms.

The interests of infants, femes covert, and persons non compos
mentis, are always especially attended to, when brought before a
court of equity; but I have never understood that the course of
justice could be arrested, or in any manner turned awry for their
benefit. Their disabilities always excite sympathy, and suggest
caution where their interests may be affected; and so far the equi-
table circumspection of the court in regard to such persons, may
be considered as affording to them a just ground to call for the
most careful deliberation; and for its ex officio protection, so far
as may be compatible with a duty to others, and an impartial
administration of justice; but under no circumstances, have they
been allowed to pervert any such claims to a special consideration

(f) Edmonson v. Frazier, 1 Bland, 92.