62 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

This does not seem to have been directly controverted in the argu-
ment, but the counsel differ widely as to the nature of the decree
of May, 1822, and as to how far it extends over the matter of this
suit; and some arguments have been urged which, if yielded to,
might lead the Court unwarily to trench upon the confines of that
decree.

The first inquiry, therefore, is, how much of this case yet re-
mains to be judicially passed upon. This case was originated on the
equity side of Baltimore County Court, and has been removed into
this Court according to the Act of Assembly authorizing such re-
movals. It stands here now as it would have stood had it con-
tinued there, or as if it had been begun and instituted here, and
these proceedings are to be so considered. They have not been
affected by any mere circumstance of place or tribunal, but are
here as it* they had all passed under, and been sanctioned by the
judicial authority of the present Chancellor, and will be treated
accordingly.

The complainants came into Court as the creditors of Henderson
& Rogers, of both and each of them. The plaintiffs complain,
* that their debt has not been paid ; and they are here
68 seeking payment. To enable this tribunal to give them the
relief they ask ; and which cannot be obtained without the aid of
its peculiar powers ; they point to certain property which, they
allege, was once confessedly, and ought now, in reality, to be with-
in their legal reach, and subject to the pay meat of their claim.
They allege, that this property, which was at one time held by,
and in the name of their debtor, Rogers, has been, and is now
iniquitously covered up, and withdrawn from their grasp, by cer-
tain deeds of conveyance made by their debtor, Rogers, to a cer-
tain Nicholas Strike ; they pray, that this cover, and these impe-
diments, may be removed; that the property may be sold; that
the rents and profits of it may be accounted for ; and that the
proceeds may be applied in satisfaction of their claim. These
plaintiffs then call on Rogers and Strike, as defendants, to meet
and repel these allegations, if they can.

Rogers appears, and admits, that he is the debtor of the plain-
tiffs, and that he conveyed the property in question to Strike ; but
denies that it was done with any fraudulent design ; on the con-
trary he avers, that those conveyances to Strike were made by
him in trust for, and the better to secure the payment of all his
just debts. Strike comes in, and boldly takes his stand in direct
and total opposition to the plaintiffs. He avers, and undertakes
to maintain and prove that he acquired the property in question
for a full and valuable consideration, and that he has a right to
claim protection here, as a fair and bona fide purchaser. He plants
himself upon the honesty of his title, and claims nothing by his