660 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

at present to establish any general rule on the subject. There is
nothing in the objection that the quantity of land sold has not been
sufficiently ascertained. Order affirmed.

The plaintiffs by their petition stated, that the trustee Foulke
had died, and thereupon prayed that some other person might be
appointed in his stead.

1st March, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The plaintiffs by their
bill do not profess to sue as well for the other creditors of Stephen
Scotton as for themselves. From the facts which they set forth, it
appears, that they were the holders of a vendor's lien to secure the
payment of the balance of the purchase money; and as such, in
their proceeding to have the land sold for the payment of their
claim, they had no such common interest with the other creditors
of Stephen Scotton, as would enable them to sustain a ereditor's
suit for the administration of his estate, (q) Yet from the manner
in which the bill speaks of the insufficiency of the personal estate;
and on having made Ashur Foulke, the administrator, a defendant,
it may be inferred, that the plaintiffs contemplated their bill as the
commencement of a creditor's suit. The decree of the 5th of
April 1822, by reciting, that the deceased Stephen Scotton did not
leave personal estate sufficient for the payment of his just debts;
and by directing the land to be sold for the payment of the claim
of the complainants and of such other debts of the deceased as
should be established to the Chancellor's satisfaction, evidently
considers the proceeding as a creditor's suit. But no notice has
been directed to be given to the creditors of the deceased to bring
in their claims; nor has any decree to account been passed against
the administrator; on the contrary, all claim against him, as well
by the plaintiffs to obtain satisfaction of their debt, as by these
heirs to have the real estate descended relieved, by the application
of the personalty which might be found in his hands, seems to
have been wholly abandoned.

It now appears that the defendant, Ashur Foulke, the adminis-
trator, who had been appointed to make the sale, is dead; and
that the suit had thus abated as to him. A suit which has abated
as well in regard to the real as to the personal estate may be so
revived as to proceed against either, leaving the abatement to
stand as to the other, (r) So here, as this abatement does not

, (q) Ellicott v. Welch, ante 244; Hammond v. Hammond, ante 344.—(r) Cole-
gate D. Owings' case, 1 Bland, 409.