
    *Robert Pollard v. James Collier, Comm’r of Insolvents.
    Where the facts of a case, disclosed on the hearing, show no injury, but such as has resulted from the complainant’s own mismanagement in suit at law, chancery can afford no relief.
    This case was adjourned from the county of Greene. It was a bill in chancery to be relieved against a judgment at law, upon an insolvent petitioner’s bond. The facts, as they appeared upon the whole case, are these :
    In April, 1833, the complainant applied to the respondent, who was commissioner of insolvents for the county of Greene, and took the preliminary steps to obtain the benefit of the insolvent law. One of these preliminary steps was giving the bond upon which the judgment at law was obtained. At the April term of the court of common pleas, 1833, his petition came on for hearing, and was dismissed, because the petitioner had not complied with the law. In 'November, 1833, a suit was commenced against the complainant and his sureties on the insolvent bond. This suit came-, in due course of law, before the Supreme Court, in Greene county, where, in June term, 1836, a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in that suit. In August, 1834, a second application was made, by complainant, for the benefit of the insolvent act, and, upon this application, in November, 1835, the insolvent certificate was issued by the court. .
    The bill in this case was filed in the Supreme Court in June, 1836, while the suit on the bond and the second application for relief were both pending and undetermined. The sureties in the bond were not parties complainant, nor was the original creditor, or any other creditor parties defendant. The bill prayed .an injunction and general relief. The defendant answered and detailed the facts of the case, as above set forth. Upon this bill and answer the cause was heard.
    
      Ellsbery and Smith, for complainant.
    Harlen, for defendant.
   Judge Lane

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is a satisfactory objection to granting relief on this bill, that it has no proper parties. One of- several obligors to a bond seeks relief against it! Such a bill must be brought by all the obligors as complainants, unless in a special case of collusion.

Passing this objection by, the complainant presents no case for relief. The cause for dismissing the petition does not appear *from the proceedings upon it. There is a suggestion that it was because no satisfactory account of losses was given. It certainly consisted in some non-compliance with the law. No error is imputed to the court, and, if such error occurred, it can not be corrected, in this manner, before this court. It would seem that the petitioner failed in obtaining relief, either because he mistook the amount or miscalculated the effects of his proofs. He presents, therefore, nothing but the common case of a failure for some fault of his own, which makes no case for equitable relief. 2 Ohio, 312. Bill dismissed.  