
    WILLIAM M’KINNIE v. WALTER B. RUTHERFORD.
    A defence, which is good in equity against the assignor of a note or judgment, is available against his equitable assignee.
    To a bill brought by the assignee of a judgment the assignor is a necessary party.
    The case made by the bill, answer and proofs was, that one Saekett sold a tract of land to the defendant Rutherford. The land was under mortgage, of which Rutherford was ignorant at the time of the purchase. To secure the purchase money, Rutherford gave four several promissory notes payable to Saekett or bearer, which the latter after-wards pledged to the plaintiff for money borrowed of him. After the notes became due, suit was brought on them in the name of Saekett, and judgment obtained, Rutherford knowing at that time that M'Kinnie had an interest in them. After the judgments were obtained, Rutherford, discovering for the first time, that the lands which Saekett had conveyed to him, were under mortgage, filed his bill against Saekett alone, praying an injunction, which at the hearing was perpetuated. The plaintiff then filed this bill against Rutherford, omitting to make Saekett a party, claiming to be the equitable assignee of the notes, and to be entitled to the beneficial interest in the judgments, and seeking to be made a party defendant with Saekett to the former suit.
    Dec. 1834.
    No counsel appeared for either party.
   Daniel, Judge,

Pee. Curiam. Bill dismissed.  