682 WORTHINGTON v. LEE.

a bill should be brought against his assignees alone,

without making him a party. This exemption of the bankrupt
from being called on as a party, is, however, expressly founded
upon the fact of his whole estate having been vested in his as-
signees; and of a bill of foreclosure being limited in its nature to
the obtaining of satisfaction from a particular fund, in which he
had been deprived of all manner of interest by a legal assignment,
which he could in no way invalidate, deny, or question; and also,
upon the ground, that in no event, nor by any form of decree,
could the proceedings in that suit be applied for the benefit of the
bankrupt; or be so used, as to make him liable for any thing, or
to any amount. For it is admitted, that if such a bill sets forth
any kind of actual interest in the bankrupt, which should be bound
by the decree, it will be necessary to make him a party to the suit
to foreclose, (d)

But here the mortgagor is not a bankrupt, nor in the condition
of bankrupt; nor in the similar situation, according to our law,
of an insolvent debtor, whose whole estate had been vested in a
trustee for the benefit of his creditors. There has been nothing
stated, nor as yet shewn, by which it appears, that, as in cases of
bankruptcy or insolvency, he has been exonerated and discharged
from all liability for this debt; so, that if the mortgaged estate
should not, of itself, produce a complete satisfaction in the way
in which the plaintiff has a right to have it disposed of, the mort-
gagor could not be called upon to pay the deficiency, (e) On the
contrary, instead of the mortgagor's having been divested of his
estate by an assignment which he cannot controvert, and so as to
leave him in no way liable; his equity of redemption alone, has
been taken in execution and sold; the fact and validity of which
sale he may deny, and put in issue by an action of ejectment, or
by a suit in equity of this kind, involving a decision upon the
right, (f) Hence, it is essentially necessary, that this question-
able title to the equity of redemption, as derived from the judicial
sale, should be entirely put to rest by calling before the court, as

(d) Griffin v. Archer, 2 Anstr. 478; Benfield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 77; Whitworth
v. Davis, 1 Ves. & Bea. 545; Lloyd v, Lander, 5 Mad. 282; Collins v. Shirley, 4
Cond. Cha. Rep. 692.—(e) Collet v. Wollaston, 3 Bro. C. C. 228; 1805, ch. 110;
1808, ch. 71; 1812, ch. 77.—(f) Morgan v. Davis, 2 H. & McH. 9; West v.
Hughes, 1 H. & J. 6; Purl v. Duvall, 5 H. & J. 77; Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J.
204; Fenwick v. Floyd, 1 H. & G. 172.