
    Patton v. Page.
    Spring Vacation,
    1809.
    Hortgages — Foreclosure—Accounts oi Personal Estate. —A mortgagee cannot be compelled, in order to-get hold of the mortgaged subject, to go into an account of the personal assets.
    There was a decree in this case in the Court below, to foreclose a mortgage against the devisee of the mortgagor.
    Mr. Bolts moved for an appeal,
    upon the ground that the personal representative should have been a defendant, in order that he might have accounted for the personal assets.
    
      
       Mortgages — Foreclosure—Parties,—Tn George v. Cooper, 15 W. Va. 673, it is said: “There has been a question whether the personal representative of a mortgagor of land in fee. or the grantor in a deed of trust conveying land in fee, who occupy similar attitudes, is a necessary party, when a mortgage is to be foreclosed or the land sold by a decree of the court. In England it has been held he is not. See Story’s Mq. PL, sec. 175, p. 209, sec. 186, p. 222, and authorities cited. See also, Patton v. Page, i Hen. & 21. 449. But it has been held by the court of appeals of Virginia that he ought to be made a party in such a suit. See Harrison v. Harrison, etc., 1 Call 419.”
      See monographic note on "Mortgages” appended to Porkner v. Stuart, 6 Gratt. 197.
    
   *’By the Chancellor.

The mortgagee cannot be compelled, in order to get hold of the mortgaged subject, to go into an account of the assets: it would be against the constant course of the Court; and again, the decree is but interlocutory.

Appeal denied.  