WORTHINGTON v. LEE. 681

being fit and proper, for the peace of all concerned, their power

to do so should be spread upon a record to which they are parties,
in order that the matter may be finally put to rest; or they may
have been justly made defendants, in order to draw from them a
discovery as to some particulars, material to the relief sought by
the plaintiff, as to which they could not be made to speak as
witnesses; because of their not being totally, and in all respects,
disinterested.

As to the first ground; the present interests of these defendants.
It must be recollected, that there existed, before the payment of
any part of this debt, two entirely distinct interests in this land.
The equity of redemption held by the mortgagor; and the legal
right of the mortgagee, subject to that equity. By the sheriff's
sale, as stated in the bill, the first of those interests was disposed
of, and nothing more. But the proceeds of that sale, to the
extent of $68 43, have been so applied, as in part only, to extin-
guish the legal right of the mortgagee; and thus, a third interest has
arisen out of the manner in which the two first have been dealt
with. To whose benefit shall that extinguishment enure ? The
purchaser with notice, as in this instance, at the sheriff's sale,
bought and paid for nothing more than the naked equity of re-
demption; hence, it is clear, that if he were allowed to take
advantage of that, as a total reduction of the incumbrance, he
would derive a benefit, for which he had paid nothing, nor given
any equivalent whatever, which cannot be admitted. It follows,
therefore, that the mortgagor must, at the hearing, or before this case
is finally disposed of, be permitted to take the place of the mort-
gagee to obtain reimbursement, so far as his interest, other than
the mortgaged property, may have been taken and applied to the
reduction and partial satisfaction of this incumbrance. How such
an adjustment is to be made, need not now be determined, as it is
a matter which may well be permitted to stand over for further
consideration. But to the extent of the reduction of this incum-
brance made by the payment of the f 68 43, raised by a sale of the
mortgagor's interest, it is perfectly clear, that the mortgagor is a
proper and necessary party, (e)

In regard to the second ground. The equity of redemption,
and the manner in which it has been sold. In England, it has
been held, that where the mortgagor has been declared a bankrupt,

(c) Jackson v, Hull, 10 John. Rep. 481; Tice v, Annin, 2 John, Ca. Ch. 125.