84 STRIKE'S CASE.

court is called on to make a distribution of the fund. The claim
of the plaintiffs has, as we have seen, to a certain extent, been
settled and determined by the decree of May 1822; and therefore,
their claim is not now to be reconsidered and reinvestigated.

It has been objected, that the bill does not, as it ought, allege
that the complainants sue as well for the benefit of other creditors,
as for themselves. It is often a matter of some perplexity to deter-
mine who ought to be made parties, the rule being laid down in
general terms, that all who are interested in the decree should be
made parties. This decree virtually recognises this as one of those
cases in which all the other creditors of the debtor, against whom,
or whose estate the suit is brought, may come in either before or
after the decree, or at any time before the assets have been distri-
buted, and claim a proportionable share of them. And supposing
the bill had alleged, that the originally suing creditors sued as well
for others as for themselves, it is said, that the right of such others
to come in could not now have been questioned. In England it
seems to be an established rule, in cases of this kind, that the bill
should distinctly allege, that the complainant institutes the suit, as
well for the benefit of all others who may thereafter come in, as of
himself. In this State such a qui tam allegation in bills of this na-
ture is very common, and is certainly very proper and useful in
apprising the court, and all concerned, at once, of the object and
character of the suit. But this is the first instance here in which
such an objection, to a bill of this kind, has ever been made, so far
as I have been able to learn. In this case, it sufficiently appears
from the whole proceedings, bill, answers, orders and decree, that
this is a case in which other creditors may come in; and therefore
in this instance, and in this stage of the case, I cannot say, that
the bill is erroneous and deficient for the want of such an allega-
tion; consequently the other creditors of Rogers may be permitted
to come in and participate, notwithstanding there is no such alle-
gation in this bill.(a)

But it is objected, that those other creditors who, it is alleged,
have actually come in to partake, have not presented themselves in
legal and proper form, that their claims have not been sufficiently
authenticated and proved; and, even if these objections were re-
moved, that their claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
These objections will be severally considered, and also the reply,

(a) Martin v. Martin, 1 Ves. 214.