156 McKIM v, THOMPSON.

to it. And in the application of this maxim, there is nothing
peculiar in the character of the court, or in the mode of judicial
proceeding, by which it can be at all affected or varied. It is a
fundamental principle applicable to all courts, and from which none
are allowed to depart. The judgment of a court of law is the
legal result of the facts admitted by the parties, or found by the
jury: and so too, the decree of a court of chancery is the result,
according to principles of equity, arising from the facts found in
the bill, answer, proceedings and proofs. Such is the acknowledged
foundation of all final and general judgments or decrees.(c)

But interlocutory orders and decrees affecting rights, must, so
far as they go, have a similar basis; because, no court of judicature
can arbitrarily make a partial, any more than a total disposition of
the rights of things or persons, without such a foundation. The
judge can go no farther than to apply the rule to the case, or to
pronounce the law upon the facts, either partially or wholly. It is
of the very nature of judicial power to be so limited. It is, how-
ever, of no importance, as regards this principle, how the facts are
made to appear, or in what shape they are presented to the tribunal;
whether by confession; by arithmetical calculation; by necessary
deduction; or by positive and direct proof. It is enough that the
facts are so placed before the tribunal as to preclude all further
denial of them. The court may then be called on, in cases like
this, to pass an order, or, in other words, to pronounce the equity
resulting from the facts. Such are the elementary principles. Let
us now bring them near to the case under consideration.

In cases of this sort, it is not necessary that the party moving
for the order, should shew an unquestionable right to a part, or to
the whole of the money proposed to be called in. It is enough,
that he shews an interest in the safety and final disposition of the
funds. The general rule is, that the plaintiff is solely entitled to
the fund, or has acquired, in the whole of it, such an interest,
together with others, as entitles him, in his own behalf, and the
behalf of those others, to have the fund secured in court, (d)

A motion, by a party interested, to order money to be brought
into court, can only be founded upon the allegation, that the clear
conclusion of law from the fact is, that the person, proposed to be
called on, has no right or title whatever to hold the money of which
he has the possession* And, therefore, the first inquiry is, are there

(c) Gilb, For. Rom. 85.—(d) Freeman v. Fairlie, 8 Meriv. 29.