82 STRIKE'S CASE,

upon the vendee's being brought before the court by the vendor,
that is, the contracting party injured as plaintiff, against the party
injuring as defendant. A few examples will sufficiently illustrate
this position: The plaintiff came to be relieved against the penalty
of a bond; the ground of equity was established by the proofs,
and the relief was decreed, but not without the payment of princi-
pal and interest, even although it exceeded the penalty of the
bond.(x) But where lands were devised for the payment of debts,
and there was a bond debt, the interest of which had outran the
penalty, yet the creditor, on a bill filed by him, was allowed to re-
cover no more than the penalty. In the first case the creditor was
sustained by this maxim of equity; in the second, his case rested
barely on his own contract. Again, the plaintiff for ninety pounds
lent, fraudulently obtained a bond for eight hundred pounds, on
which he obtained a judgment, and the object of the bill was to
have certain lands subjected to the plaintiff's satisfaction in equity.
But the court would not give him any relief, not so much as for the
principal he had really lent, and dismissed his bill. If, however,
the defendant in this case, had come in to set aside the judgment
for fraud, equity would have obliged him to pay the ninety pounds
really lent. This case is also illustrative of another maxim, that
he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity, (y)

Now in order to bring these cases, and the principle they illus-
trate, fully to bear upon the case under consideration, it must appear,
that the complainants not only claim under Rogers; but, that they
stand here, in all respects, as he would have stood; and that they
ask to have these deeds vacated upon the same grounds, that he
could have made a similar prayer. But the case now before the
court is of a totally different nature. Rogers himself is here as a
defendant, charged as a particeps fraudis, and relief is prayed by
these complainants against him as well as against Strike. The
present creditors do certainly claim this property under Rogers ;
and it is also true, that they can only take it, subject to all fair,
legal and equitable llens with which Rogers may have incumbered
it, antecedent and superior to their claims. But, as against Strike,
these plaintiffs are to be considered as purchasers of the most
favoured and meritorious class, holding by a prior and superior title.
The improvements and the advances for the ground rent, the Pratt-
street assessment, and the taxes alleged to have been made and

(x) Fran. Max. 4. note; 2 Ev. Poth. Obl. 89.—(y) Fran. Max. 8.