DOUB VS. BARNES. 139

Mr. Thomas was made a defendant to the original bill, as
one of the purchasers of a portion of the land from the trustees,
for which it was alleged he paid no money, the same being al-
lowed to remain in his hands, under an impression that the trust
fund, exclusive of the purchase made by Thomas, -would be
sufficient to discharge all the judgments of elder date than the
one which had been recovered by Thomas himself against
Barnes and the Masons, in 1839; and that, consequently, the
consideration of the land purchased by Thomas would be prop-
erly applicable to the payment of the judgment held by him.
The bill alleged, however, that this impression was so far ground-
less that the judgments on which executions had been issued
and been levied on the land, purchased by the complainant of the
trustees, were elder in date than the judgment recovered by
Thomas, and that, therefore, equity required that Thomas should
be made to pay the purchase money due from him, before the
complainant should be called on a second time to pay for the
land which he had purchased; and prayed relief accordingly.

After the answer of Thomas to this bill was filed, the com-
plainant asked and obtained leave to file an amended bill, in
which he alleged that the judgment recovered by Thomas was
founded on a usurious contract, the nature of which is set forth
in the bill; insisting, that if the judgment by reason of the
usury is not to be regarded as absolutely void, it should only
stand as a security for the sum actually and fairly due; and
then prays for a discovery, and such relief as the case may re-
quire. The defendant Thomas demurred to this bill, 1st upon
the ground, that it made no case which entitled the complainant
to a discovery from, and relief against the defendant. 2nd,
That the two bills, original and supplemental, contained multi-
farious matters, not proper to be blended in the same suit. 3rd,
That the complainant has not tendered, or offered to pay, the
amount actually due the defendant, with interest thereon. 4th,
That the complainant has shown no title to seek a discovery,
or obtain relief. And 5th, That if the defendant is answer-
able to any one touching the matters in the bill, the complainant
is not the party to whom he is so answerable.