|
|
|
|
|
|
|
516 WALSH v. SMYTH.
come or be brought before the court as parties to this suit, although
they might well have been permitted to sue together, (r)
It would seem from the little interest taken in the matter by
Casenave, for it appears that he never swore to the bill nor joined in
the injunction bond, that he was by no means very earnest in as-
suming the position taken by Walsh; and his administrator Walker,
it would seem, had refused or neglected to concern himself about
the affair in any way whatever. Upon the whole, I am of opinion,
that this decree may well stand as it does, binding the interests of
Walsh alone.
The petitioner asks to have the injunction reinstated and the
case reheard, as a necessary means of protecting the interests which
the creditors of his intestate have in the proceeds of a certain tract
of land, in the manner described in the award exhibited by him.
But, that award was made in a suit between Samuel Moale, trustee of
James Walker, an insolvent, against Robert Walsh; and the convey-
ance directed by that award was to be made to that trustee of Walker ;
consequently, that trustee, and not this petitioner, is the representa-
tive of the creditors, who alone, by the terms of the award, are to
be benefited by the continuance of the injunction. This petitioner
is Casenave's administrator, he represents him alone, and is con-
sidered in equity as a trustee for the benefit of Casenave's creditors
and next of kin. The award secures no benefit to them, but to the
creditors of James Walker, the insolvent surviving partner of Case-
nave. This award, therefore, secures to the administrator of Case-
nave no beneficial interest whatever. And putting aside that docu-
ment, the petitioner has shewn no assets nor any interests of his
intestate which can be protected by him alone either for creditors
or next of kin; and which, if he should not be let in as a party to
this suit, can be in any way affected by the decree or the dissolu-
tion of the injunction.
It is alleged in the petition, that irreparable injury will be done
to the bona fide purchasers without notice of the lands bound by
the judgment rendered against the plaintiff, if the injunction be
dissolved without giving them an opportunity of being heard, and of
producing testimony in support of the injunction.
But those judgments, being liens of record, were in themselves,
(r) Finley v. Bank U, S. 11 Wheat. 804; Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of
Alexandria, 1 Peters, 47; The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1 Peters,
306.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
