It has been held, however, that a creditor may not maintain an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, at least until the creditor has exhausted all means of procuring such an action to be brought by the executor or administrator. ( Emmons v. Barton, 109 Cal. 662, 667-668 [42 P. 303]; Beswick v. Churchill Co., 22 Cal.App. 404 [ 134 P. 722]; Beswick v. Dorris, 174 F. 502; Putney v. Fletcher, 148 Mass. 247 [19 N.E. 370].) Thus the statute has as a secondary object the prevention of complications that would result if several creditors were to pursue the remedy and seek to apply the property to their individual claims.

The rule as thus stated has become, in many states, even more firmly implanted by statute, the effect of which is to make the executor or administrator the statutory agent of the creditors for the purpose of maintaining the particular action for their benefit. Beswick v. Churchill Co., 22 Cal.App. 404, 134 P. 722; Marion County Nat. Bank v. Smith, 205 Iowa 203, 217 N.W. 857; Caswell v. Caswell, 28 Me. 232; Putney v. Fletcher, 148 Mass. 247, 19 N.E. 370; Fourth Nat. Bank of Boston v. Mead, 214 Mass. 549, 102 N.E. 69; Millen v. Kavanaugh, 268 Mass. 73, 167 N.E. 291; In re Smith's Estate, 60 Mont. 276, 199 P. 696; Baker v. Carter, 127 N.C. 92, 37 S.E. 81; Fehringer v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 23 Utah 393, 64 P. 1108; Wasatch Livestock Loan Co. v. Nielson, 90 Utah 307, 56 P.2d 613; Beswick v. Dorris, 174 Fed. 502; 2 Bancroft Probate Practice, §§ 474-476. The statutes of this state touching the particular subject are comparable and similar, in language, purpose and effect, to those involved in the cases just cited.