WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND. 17

the insolvent surviving partner of Casenave. This award, there-
fore, secures to the administrator of Casenave no beneficial inte-
rest whatever. And putting aside that document, the petitioner
has shewn no assets nor any interests of his intestate which can
be protected by him alone either for creditors or next of kin; and
which, if he should not be let in as a party to this suit, can be in
any way affected by the decree or the dissolution of the injunction.

It is alleged in the petition, that irreparable injury will be done
to the bona fide purchasers without notice of the lands bound by
the judgment rendered against the plaintiff, if the injunction be
dissolved without giving them an opportunity of being heard, and
of producing testimony in support of the injunction.

But those judgments, being liens of record, were in themselves,
* notice to those purchasers; and they being no way con-
eerned with this matter in controversy, further than as they 27
voluntarily involved themselves in its consequences, by purchasing
the lands which were so bound, they can have no right to come in
as parties, or to have a rehearing of the case. If the lands which
they purchased had been the immediate subject of controversy in
this suit, pending which they had purchased, then that lis pendens
would clearly have been such a notice to all such purchasers as effec-
tually to bind them to abide by the event of the suit, without hav-
ing the privilege of being admitted as parties to it in any manner
whatever. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1 Peters,
299. But those purchasers of the realty do not complain; and even
if they did, the personal representative of Casenave cannot be
allowed to come here as the bearer of their complaints; and there
is no heir or devisee to whom Casenave's real estate passed on
his death, asking to be let in as parties, or to have this decree re-
scinded and the case reheard, for the protection of their interests
or of those of any one who claims under their ancestor or devisor.
This decree therefore, cannot be disturbed for any such purpose.

The petitioner alleges, that if permitted to come in as a co-plain-
tiff, he could and would obtain sufficient proof to establish the
matters set forth in the bill. He does not pretend to have dis-
covered any testimony which was not known to him in time to
have had it produced and used at 'the hearing of the ease; nor
does he in any manner account for the very great negligence of
Casenave, or of his administrator Walker, or of those who must
have had a legal and beneficial object in sustaining Casenave's
interests if any he had after the death of Walker, he never having
attempted to come in and bring before the Court, that sufficient
and competent testimony which he now says he believes may be
obtained for that purpose.

If such general and loose allegations as these were to be deemed
sufficient ground to open a decree and to grant a rehearing of the
case, there would be no end to litigation. It is a most incumbent
2 3B.