142 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

The complainant is the assignee of these parties, and the
question is, whether, occupying that position, he may not set
up usury against the judgment of Thomas, the payment of
whose claim has operated, or is likely to operate, to his preju-
dice.

In the case of D'Wolf vs. Johnson, 10 Wheat., 369, the Su-
preme Court was supposed to have decided, that the purchaser
of an equity of redemption could not show usury in the mort-
gage, to defeat a foreclosure; but the case of Lloyd vs. Scott,
4 Peters, 205, shows that the point was not involved in D'Wolf*
vs. Johnson, and the case reported in Peters proves that a pur-
chaser from the mortgagor may avail himself of the defence of
usury, to defeat the action of the assignee of the mortgagee.
The right of the alienee of the mortgagor to avail himself of the
defence of usury, is maintained by the Court of Appeals in
Trumbo vs. Blizzard, 6 Gill & Johns., 18, and I am not able
to perceive why, if Barnes and the Masons might require this
defendant to repay the excess which he may have received over
his debt and legal interest, the complainant who claims under
and through them, may not do so likewise.

Acting upon this impression, the demurrer of the defendant,
Thomas, will be overruled, and he will be required to put in a
full answer to the bill, within some reasonable time to be fixed
by the order of the court. Daniel's Ch. Pr; 674, 675.

The only remaining question is one of contribution among
the several vendees of the lands embraced in the deed of trust.
The Court of Appeals have said, that judgment against the
terretenants gives the plaintiff at law a right to sell as much of
the land as may be necessary to satisfy his claim, and if any
one is injured he may resort to a court of equity to compel all
who stood in equali jure to contribute; but that the plaintiff at
law is not bound to suspend his execution until the question of
contribution shall be settled.

The statements and prayers of this bill are, I think, sufficient
to found a decree upon for contribution, as among these ven-
dees; and they will, therefore, be required to contribute in pro-
portion to the value of the land conveyed to each respectively.