68 STRIKE'S CASE.

that their debt has not been paid; and they are here seeking
payment. To enable this tribunal to give them the relief they ask;
and which cannot be obtained without the aid of its peculiar
powers; they point to certain property which, they allege, was
once confessedly, and ought now, in reality, to be within their legal
reach, and subject to the payment of their claim. They allege,
that this property, which was at one time held by, and in the name
of their debtor, Rogers, has been, and is now iniquitously covered
up, and withdrawn from their grasp, by certain deeds of conveyance
made by their debtor, Rogers, to a certain Nicholas Strike; they
pray, that this cover, and these impediments, may be removed;
that the property may be sold; that the rents and profits of it may be
accounted for; and that the proceeds may be applied in satisfaction
of their claim. These plaintiffs then call on Rogers and Strike, as
defendants, to meet and repel these allegations, if they can.

Rogers appears, and admits, that he is the debtor of the plain-
tiffs, and that he conveyed the property in question to Strike,
but denies that it was done with any fraudulent design; on the
contrary he avers, that those conveyances to Strike were made by
him in trust for, and the better to secure the payment of all his
just debts. Strike comes in, and boldly takes his stand in direct
and total opposition to the plaintiffs. He avers, and undertakes to
maintain and prove, that he acquired the property in question for a
full and valuable consideration, and that he has a right to claim
protection here, as a fair and bona fide purchaser. He plants
himself upon the honesty of his title, and claims nothing by his
answer, which should not be conceded to a defendant who fully
sustains such a defence as he has set forth.

In application to this claim and defence, proofs have been
collected, and the case has been submitted to the decision of a
competent tribunal, who, in May 1822, declared and decreed, that
the conveyances from Rogers to Strike were " null and void as
against the complainants;" that the property in question should be
sold; that the proceeds be brought in " to be applied under the
court's direction," and concluding with a declaration, that" all
equities, as to the distribution of the proceeds of sale, are reserved
by the court for hearing," on their being brought in.

It is held to be a first principle, by every court of justice, that
no one can ask for its determination without showing a sufficient
ground for its decision. Before a plaintiff can call for a determina-
tion in Ms favour, he must furnish the court with a basis whereoa