16 WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND.

sideration, which is inseparably common to them all, in such
case the decree would be palpably inconsistent which should
grant relief against one and not against another, upon the
ground that the same claim or consideration was good as to one
and bad as to another. Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 236. But
where several obligors have a ground of relief or defence of which
all may take advantage, that relief or defence may certainly be
asserted or waived by any one without prejudice to another of
them. Whetcroft v. Christee, 4 H. & McH. 387. So here, if the
consideration of this purchase had so failed as to enable both Walsh
and Casenave to claim a return of the purchase money from Smyth
and Lynch, the Court might grant relief, or sustain the defence of
both, or of either Walsh or Casenave as against Smyth and Lynch;
but as Smyth and Lynch must claim together under the same con-
sideration, its invalidity must be established as to each, since the
Court must, upon that ground, grant the same relief to both of
them.

Hence as Walsh and Casenave might each be relieved separately
without prejudice to the other, or to the interests of these defend-
ants, it was not indispensably necessary, that they should both
* come or be brought before the Court as parties to this suit,
26 although they might well have been permitted to sue to-
gether. Finley v. Bank U. S. 11 Wheat. 304; Minor v. The Mechanics
Bank of Alexandria, 1 Peters, 47; The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria
v. Seton, 1 Peters, 306.

It would seem from the little interest taken in the matter by
Casenave, for it appears that he never swore to the bill nor joined
in the injunction bond, that he was by no means very earnest in
assuming the position taken by Walsh; and his administrator
Walker, it would seem, had refused or neglected to concern him-
self about the affair in any way whatever. Upon the whole, I
am of opinion, that this decree may well stand as it does, bind-
ing the interests of Walsh alone.

The petitioner asks to have the injunction reinstated and the
case reheard, as a necessary means of protecting the interests
which the creditors of his intestate have in the proceeds of a cer-
tain tract of land, in the manner described in the award exhibited
by him. But, that award was made in a suit between Samuel
Moale, trustee of James Walker, an insolvent, against Robert
Walsh; and the conveyance directed by that award was to be
made to that trustee of Walker; consequently, that trustee, and
not this petitioner, is the representative of the creditors, who alone,
by the terms of the award, are to be benefited by the continuance
of the injunction. This petitioner is Casenave's administrator, he
represents him alone, and is considered in equity as a trustee for
the benefit of Casenave's creditors and next of kin. The award
secures no benefit to them, but to the creditors of James Walker,