644 WORTHINGTON v. LEE.—2 BLAND.

plaintiff's right to such an answer as he calls for by his bill. These
demurrers, it is evident, cannot be treated as disclaimers, merely
because of the cause thus loosely shewn for relying on them. The
case, as stated by the bill, must therefore be carefully considered
to ascertain whether or not these persons have been properly made
defend ants ; because of their having an interest in the object of the
suit; or because of their being in any way liable to he called here
as defendants.

All persons having an interest in the object of the suit, ought
to be made parties; but it is often difficult to at once determine,
who do come within this general description. Much must always
depend upon the peculiar nature of the case; and how it may ter-
minate. If the Court itself sees that a person whose interests must
be involved in a decree, which it may be called on to pass, has not
been made a party to the suit, it will, even at the hearing suspend
its proceedings until he has been brought in as a party. And it
lies upon the plaintiff to shew, that in some way in which the suit
may terminate, it is necessary for his advantage or protection,
that the person who he has summoned as a defendant should be
made a party. Calrert on Parties, 10; Lloyd v. Lander, 5 Mad.
289.

These persons may have been rightfully called here as defen-
dants on one of three grounds; either because of some beneficial
interest to which they are entitled, arising out of the nature of
their ancestor's contract, and the manner in which it has been par-
tially enforced; or they may have been correctly brought here as
defendants, because of their power to draw in question the title of
the present claimant of this equity of redemption; and of its
therefore * being fit and proper, for the peace of all con-
681 cerned, that their power to do so should be spread upon a
record to which they are parties, in order that the matter may be
finally put to rest; or they may have been justly made defendants, in
order to draw from them a discovery as to some particulars, ma-
terial to the relief sought by the plaintiff, as to which they could
not be made to speak as witnesses; because of their not being
totally, and in all respects, disinterested.

As to the first ground; the present interests of these defendants.
It must be recollected, that there existed, before the payment of
any part of this debt, two entirely distinct interests in this land.
The equity of redemption held by the mortgagor; and the legal
right of the mortgagee, subject to that equity. By the sheriff's
sale, as stated in the bill, the first of those interests was disposed
of, and nothing more. Bat the proceeds of that sale, to the ex-
tent of $68.43, have been so applied, as in part only, to extinguish
the legal right of the mortgagee; and thus, a third interest has
arisen out of the manner in which the two first have been dealt
with. To whose benefit shall the extinguishment enure? The