Responsa על כתובות 187:21

Q. A owed money to several persons. When B demanded his money from A, the latter admitted the debt but claimed that since he did not possess enough money or valuables to cover all his obligations, he preferred to divide his possessions equitably among his creditors. Since A admits, in court, his debt to B, may the latter force A to repay that debt in full, before he divides his property?
A. Since A owes money to several persons, and since he owes more than the total value of his possessions, each creditor is entitled to receive an equal share of such possessions irrespective of the amount due him. The debtor, however, may distribute his assets among his creditors in proportion to the amount due to each, before they come to court; such distribution would be irrevocable, and would even constitute a praiseworthy act. Since A is willing so to divide his possessions, no judge can force him to favor one creditor at the expense of the other creditors. However, before receiving his share of A's possessions, movables or immovables, each creditor will have to take a creditor's oath — the same oath that a creditor takes upon collecting his debt from encumbered property.
SOURCES: Cr. 219; Am II, 45; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 41.

Q. May one heir sue his father's debtors independently of the other heirs?
A. Each heir may sue and collect his share of the inheritance.
SOURCES: Cr. 85; Pr. 212; Tesh. Maim. to Kinyan, 13; Am II, 8.

Q. May one heir sue his father's debtors independently of the other heirs?
A. Each heir may sue and collect his share of the inheritance.
SOURCES: Cr. 85; Pr. 212; Tesh. Maim. to Kinyan, 13; Am II, 8.

Q. A summoned B to court contesting his settling-rights in T. The court upheld B's rights. The other inhabitants of T now want to summon B to court again, on the ground that they have additional claims and arguments that would bolster their case against B. It is my opinion that they have forfeited their right to a retrial since they were in T during the first trial and failed to present their claims and arguments at the time.
A. Your opinion is correct. The inhabitants of T should have brought forth their claims and arguments at the original trial. For the same reason, a person summoned to court by a single inhabitant must not fail to answer the summons, on the ground that he wants to answer the claims of all the inhabitants at a single trial and does not wish to appear in court repeatedly with each individual inhabitant, since all claims against him should be brought forth during his trial when summoned by the single inhabitant or be permanently dismissed.
SOURCES: L. 216; B. p. 292, no. 367.

Q. R. Moses, the plaintiff, was not present when the defendants, the Jewish inhabitants of Quedlinburg, took an oath in order to nullify the testimony of R. Moses' single supporting witness; must they take the oath again in the presence of R. Moses?
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.