|
|
|
|
|
|
|
516 POST s. MACKALL.
of this Union; yet in each one, the mode of administering such
assets is materially different. The general creditors have, in some
states, greater difficulties to encounter than in others; the right of
preference and the classification of creditors varies; and in some
the real assets are within reach of all, while in other states credi-
tors of only a particular description are allowed to resort to them.
In this case the plaintiffs themselves say, by their exceptions, that
the land in the District of Columbia, which has been conveyed as
an additional security for this claim, No. 4, cis not liable for their
claims and other general creditors. ' Why it is not so liable, ac-
cording to the law of the District of Columbia, it is unnecessary to
enquire; it is enough for this court to know, that the other fund is
a portion of territory, or immoveable property, subject to another
government; and is governed by law which may fairly be presumed
to be, in many respects, substantially different from that of this
state, to demonstrate, that no such arrangement can be made
which may not materially impair the obligation of the contract of
that creditor against whom the funds of the debtor are directed to
be marshalled; and which may not prejudice his interests, or
greatly delay the satisfaction of his claim.
In the case of principal and surety there can be no doubt, that,
on a bill filed by the surety, he will be allowed the benefit of all the
securities of the principal, wherever they may be located, or by
whatever law they may be governed; so far as this court has the
power and the jurisdiction to assure to him the benefit of them.
Thus, if the creditor has obtained a security, by mortgage of land
in another state, or in a foreign country, the validity of which had
been impaired or made questionable by the creditor himself; the
surety may here have the creditor ordered to sue upon such
foreign security for the purpose of testing its validity, and endea-
vouring to obtain satisfaction; because if the security has, in fact,
by his own conduct been rendered so unavailable that he cannot
recover, the surety will be discharged. And this arises as an equi-
table consequence of the nature of the contract by which the princi-
pal and surety are bound, (r)
The marshalling of different funds among creditors, is not, how-
aver, founded on any such equity or implied contract between
debtors; but rests upon a natural and moral equity; that no one
ought to be permitted, at his mere will, to derive a benefit from
(r) Theobald Prin. & Sur. 256; Hayes v.. Ward, 4 John. C. C, 123.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
