238 HIGH COURT OF CHAWCERY.

tice whatever of the proceedings, would it not be most unjust
to turn him away by saying, that though not here in person,
you were by representative, and you must look to him. And
then, when he applied to him and complained, that he had suf-
fered the fund to be distributed, without regard to his rights,
the answer would be, the fund has been distributed by a court
of competent jurisdiction, for which the insolvent trustee could
not be held responsible.

I cannot bring myself to think, that the case of Alexander
vs. Ghiselin can be carried to an extent which must be produc-
tive of such injurious consequences.

The bill in that case was filed for the purpose of having the
estate administered in insolvency. But in Hodges' case, it
was the bill of a mortgagee, asking for the enforcement of his
specific lien, and the trustee of the insolvent was brought in,
because the equity of redemption had devolved upon him by
operation of the insolvent laws.

The construction contended for by the complainants' counsel
would not only make the Court of Chancery the tribunal for the
administration of the insolvent system, but as several bills for
the enforcement of several mortgages, (if the insolvent had ex-
ecuted more than one,) might be filed in the different equity
courts of the state, that singleness of administration, which the
system aimed at, and which the Court of Appeals considered
so important in Alexander's case, would be entirely defeated,
and instead of simplicity and uniformity,' the utmost confusion
would be the unavoidable result.

But it is said, the judgment of the defendants has been im-
properly revived, because Duvall, the insolvent trustee, was not
a party to the scire facias, and that, therefore, this court ought
not to dissolve the injunction.

I do not deem it necessary to express an opinion upon this
point, thinking it more properly belongs to the courts of law.
If the judgment has been improperly revived, and is a nullity,
as is contended, then no title will pass to the party who may
purchase under an execution issued upon it, and the complain-
ants will not be injured. But surely it would be improper in