140 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

It would appear from a paper dated the 23rd of February,
1844, and filed with the answer of Thomas to the original bill,
that he knew of the existence of judgments of elder date than
his own, and that a deficiency of the trust estate was a possible,
not to say probable, contingency; and it is, therefore, very ques-
tionable, whether he can be permitted, in concert with the trus-
tees, to secure such an application of the trust estate to the
payment of his own debt, as shall disappoint or prejudice prior
incumbrancers. But, whether this be so or not, there seems
on the part of the complainant, who paid his money to the
trustees, an equity superior to that of Thomas, who took land
in satisfaction of a junior, when elder liens remained outstand-
ing. If this arrangement between Thomas and the trustees
is to stand to the prejudice of Doub, the complainant, that is, if
Thomas shall keep all he has received, and the judgment cred-
itors are thrown upon the land purchased by the complainant,
then he will be compelled to pay for his land a second time,
while Thomas will not have paid once for his; because, upon
the hypothesis, that the trust fund would have been exhausted
in paying judgments prior in date to his, the judgment held
by him was of no value.

I do not think the objection upon the ground of multifarious-
ness is well taken.

The original bill sought relief against Thomas upon the
ground, that the judgment, in part satisfaction of which he re-
ceived the land from the trustees, was younger than those for
which the complainant's land was about to be sold; and there-
fore, equity required that he (Thomas) should be made to pay,
before the complainant should be compelled to pay for his land
a second time.

That bill was founded upon the idea that this defendant had,
by arrangement with the trustees, secured to himself an advan-
tage against which equity would relieve, upon the application
of a party prejudiced. The amended bill proceeds upon the
supposition, that the same judgment (in respect of which the
inequitable advantage charged in the original bill, is said to
have been secured) is tainted with usury, and upon that ground
prays for relief against it.