WORTHINGTON v. LEE. 683

well the mortgagor, as him who claims as the at that
judicial sale.

As to the third ground; an account of the mortgage debt, and
the discovery in relation to it, to which the mortgagee may be
entitled. It is true, that under a bill to foreclose, the court cannot,
after causing the mortgaged property to be sold, and the proceeds
of such sale to be applied in satisfaction of the debt, go on to
decree, that the mortgagor shall pay the balance remaining unsa-
tisfied, by the proceeds of such sale. But although it cannot so
decree, and by its own process enforce complete satisfaction by any
further proceedings under the same bill, after the mortgaged fund
has been exhausted; (g) yet it can, and must have an account
stated, to ascertain the exact amount of the mortgaged debt,
before a sale can be ordered, or at least, before it can make any
application of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged estate.
In the stating of such an account, the mortgagor has a direct inte-
rest; because it fixes the amount of his indebtedness; and the mort-
gagee also has an interest in it, and in the discovery in relation to
it, which may be drawn from the mortgagor; because, in so far as
the mortgaged property fails to produce satisfaction of the amount
so shewn, the mortgagee may again have recourse to his judgment
at law, or avail himself of any other proceeding, either at common
law or in equity, to enforce payment of such unsatisfied balance;
and therefore, upon this third ground also, it is proper that the
mortgagor should be made a party defendant to this suit.

I have spoken of the rights and liabilities of the mortgagor, and
of the grounds upon which he should have been made a party to
this suit, supposing him to be now alive. He is dead; but the
same principles apply with equal force to his heirs; they stand in
his place to the extent of his interest in the mortgaged estate,
whatever it may be; and they have succeeded to his liability for
the debt so far as real assets may have descended to them; and
that too, according to our law, whether it be considered as a simple
contract or specialty debt; so that if the mortgaged fund should
turn out to be insufficient, the plaintiff may apply to amend the
bill by making it a bill in behalf of herself and the other creditors
of the intestate Robert Lee, and thereby come at the assets so de-
scended; (h) and for aught that appears, there may be abundance

(g) Andrews v. Scotton, ante 668.—(h) Brocklehurst v. Jessop, 10 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 136.