76 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

granted him relief only upon condition of his reimbursing Strike
for all his improvements and advances, because they enured to the
use and benefit of Rogers. But no equitable principle of that sort
can be urged against the complainants. They are here as credi-
tors, praying to be relieved against a fraud contrived between
Rogers and Strike.

But, admitting all this. It is alleged, that, independently of the
vacated deeds and of the decree, Strike has a claim as a kind of
salvor of this property, which ought to be allowed. It is said he
has saved it from the hands of the ground landlord, by paying the
ground rent; he has saved it from the grasp of the Pratt street
commissioners, by paying the assessment levied upon it; and he
has saved it from the power of the State, by paying the taxes.
He maintains, that he has a right to assume the place, and to be
substituted for those claimants, and he founds this claim upon the
doctrine of substitution. But Strike, as reg'ards these complain-
ants, was an uninvited officious mala fide meddler with property
which he knew did not belong to him, and which he was apprised
ought to be liable to the claims of Rogers' creditors. He made
these advances to serve himself, not for the benefit of these com-
plainants; and if he had an intention, that these advances should
enure to the personal benefit of any one, it must have been to
Rogers; because it was from him he took the estate; and if the
conveyances were to be annulled, it was only against him he could
seek reimburement. Kames' Pri. Eq. b. I, p. 1, s. 3. Strike,
therefore, cannot have, against these complainants, any shadow of
countervailing equity on which to rest his claim for these advances,
out of the proceeds directed to be brought into Court.

Having discussed the liabilities and pretensions of the defend-
ants, let us now consider the interests of the complainants among
themselves. This is what is commonly called a creditors' bill; and
where two or more creditors bring such a bill, or others come in
afterwards, the adjustment of their rights and interests, in rela-
tion to each other, and the objections which the defendants may
make against those who have come in, after the institution of the
suit, most generally remain to be considered and decided when the
84 * Court is called on to make a distribution of the fund.
The claim of the plaintiff's has, as we have seen, to a certain
extent, been settled and determined by the decree of May, 1822;
and therefore, their claim is not now to be reconsidered and re-
investigated.

It has been objected, that the bill does not, as it ought, allege
that the complainants sue as well for the benefit of other creditors,
as for themselves. It is often a matter of some perplexity to de-
termine who ought to be made parties, the rule being laid down in
general terms, that all who are interested in the decree should be
made parties. This decree virtually recognizes this as one of those