CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE —3 BLAND. 599

* It is very true, that those injunctions were intended to
free particular propeitj from the executions, and the rea 619
sons are assigned in the bills wiry such property should not be ha
ble to the executions, and no one, lor a moment, could doubt, but
that the same grounds applicable to the whole pioperty, real a,nd

not follow, that he could not part with his right to receive the money when
the judgment was obtained

411 that Mullikin could do was to transfer the property, mortgaged to him
by Howard, subject as between him, his assignee and Howard to the pro
viso of Howard s deed But, as between Mullikin and his assignees Wilkins
& Co , subject to the proviso contained in his, Mullikm s deed to them Of
course all the interest Wilkins & Co obtained to secuie their debt was the
extent of Mullikm s claim on Howard if that were less than was due to
Wilkins & Co , they ould have to resort to other funds if none must
have borne the loss If their claim as appears to be the case were less than
the debt due from Howard, and the mortgaged premises were adequate then
the balance would have belonged to and was subject to Mullikin's disposal
But as he had transferred to Wilkins & Co the claim he had on Howard, to
the extent of the claim on him it was not in his power equitably to tians-
fer the whole claim to another person

Wilkins & Co appear to have absolutely conveyed to the complainant all
their interest and yet his own property in the possession of Howard, has
been taken in execution to be sold to raise money to be paid to William
Gwynn If Howard himself was able and willing to pav to Mullikm or
Gwynn the whole amount of the judgment on an application to this Court,
he would be prevented, and only permitted to pay the balance after dis-
charging the debt that was due to Wilkins & Co , oi he would be duected
to bring it into this Couit when a similar distribution would be made

In respect to the bond This cause cannot be distinguished from that of
Stewart v Yates (ante 613 \ determined by my predecessor, founded on a
prior decision There an injunction issued to prevent propertv from being
sold under a fien facias issued on a judgment obtained against a third person
who held the legal estate in the property intended to be sold, the equitable
title being in the complainant Here an attempt is made against the consent
of him who has a right to the whole money to be raised supposing it not to
extend to the debt that was due to Wilkins & Co to sell his own property
If the complainant has not the legal control of the judgment, he has an
equitable to the extent mentioned, supposing the transfers to him that are
exhibited with the bill to be bona fide and pnma facie they are so con-
sidered and therefore the injunction piayed for ought to issue and the
register is duccted to issue it as prayed

After which the defendant Mullikm filed his answer and moved to dis-
solve the injunction Upon consideiation of which on the first of January,
1835, the injunction was continued After which the defendant Gwynn
put in his answer, and thereon moved to dissolve but upon consideiation
theieof, the injunction was, on the 30th of March, 1835 continued After
which the other defendants having answered, the motion to dissolve was
again renewed but on this third consideration upon the answers of all the
defendants, the injunction was, on the 2d of November, 1825, again con-
tinued After which a commission was issued, and testimony taken And
at the final hearing on the 24th of July, 1828, the injunction was dissolved,
and the bill dismissed with costs