234 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ment of the judgment is concerned, to reverse that order. This
strikes me as presenting a very serious difficulty, though as I am
of opinion, that upon other grounds the prayer of this petition
cannot be granted, I do not now propose to express a decided
opinion upon it.

It was suggested in the course of the argument, that the in-
solvency of Sevier, the mortgagor, and the appointment of a
trustee for the benefit of his creditors, might have some influ-
ence upon these proceedings. But as this trustee was made a
party to the bill by amendment, and consented to a decree, and
a sale has actually been. made and reported and finally ratified
by the court, I cannot think the proceedings can now be ques-
tioned upon this ground.

An order will be passed dismissing the petition.

[On the 11th of April, 1848, Duvall and Saussar filed their
bill, praying an injunction against Speed and Pennington, who
were proceeding to enforce their judgment against the property
purchased by complainants, upon the ground that they pur-
chased free, clear and discharged of all claim of the parties to
the suit of Hodges vs. Sevier and others—that Duvall, the
trustee, was a party thereto, and, as such, represented the judg-
ment creditors, who could not, therefore, proceed again to sell
property which had already been sold by their agent, the said
trustee; that all the interest of Sevier was sold, and the pro-
ceeds, if any, were due and payable to the trustee, Duvall, for
the benefit of his creditors, and against this fund, alone, in the
hands of the trustee, could the judgment creditors proceed, ac-
cording to the acts of assembly in such case made and provided;

and, finally, that no proceeding had been instituted against the
trustee under the insolvent laws, nor had any claim been exhib-
ited to him on account of the judgment aforesaid. Upon this
bill, the Chancellor, Johnson, ordered an injunction as prayed,
and the answer having been filed, setting forth all the facts as
detailed in this report, the cause came on to be heard, upon bill
and answer, on the motion to dissolve the injunction.

Various questions were raised and argued at the hearing upon