WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON. 543

It is sufficiently obvious, upon general principles, in a creditor's
suit to administer the assets of a deceased person, that no debt
can be allowed and paid out of such assets, which was not con-
tracted by, or due from him, during his life-time; and it has been
distinctly so settled by this court, and by the Court of Appeals, (o)
The claim of A. & J. Miller, assignees of James Taylor, desig-
nated by the auditor as No. 44, which appears to have been a debt
contracted since the death of Beale M. Worthington, must there-
fore be rejected.

When I came here, I found many instances of creditor's bills
against the heirs of the deceased debtor alone, without making his
executor or administrator a party; indeed, it seemed to have been
considered by many as the correct course of the court, (p) It was
evidently attended with inconvenience, as is exemplified in this
case. But by a decision of the court of the last resort, reported
and published since this bill was filed, and only a short time before
this decree for a sale was passed; it has been finally and correctly
settled, as a general rule, that the personal representative, as well
as the heirs and devisees, must always be made a party, (q) Here
the administrator has not been made a party, and on that account,
this decree might have been withheld or reversed, had the objection
been made in time.

It appears, from the report of the auditor, that there are some
personal assets to be distributed. It is certain, that those assets
must be first administered in due course of law, and then what
remains due, after they have been exhausted, must be paid from the
real assets, so far as they will go, to those who have not been satis-
fied in due proportion, or whose claims have been unjustly rejected
by the administrator.

Whereupon it is Ordered, that the said exceptions to the audi-
tor's report, and the objections stated by the auditor to any claim,

(o) Carnan v. Turner, 6 H. & J. 66,

HULSE v. CRADOCK.—This was a creditor's bill, filed on the 21st of January,
1797, to have John Cradock's real estate sold, to pay his debts; sale decreed, &c.
The sales as made and reported, were absolutely ratified and confirmed. After
which, upoa a receipt of a solicitor for his fee, for drawing the answers of the defen-
dants, being presented and filed as a claim against the deceased's estate.

28th March, 1799.—HANSON, Chancellor.—This is no debt due from the de-
ceased. It cannot even come in by way of costs, no costs being allowed for
drawing answers; it must therefore be rejected.

(p) Harwood v. Rawlings, 4 H. & J. 126; Duvall v. Green, 4 H. & J. 270;
Bond v. Bond, ante 353; Flemming v. Castle, ante 355; Dorsey v. Cooke, ante
526; Emory v. Seth, ante 541.—(q) Tyler v. Bowie, 4 H. & J. 333,