ADAMSON  V.  ADAMSON.  611

In  the  case  of  The  Attorney-Oeneral  v.  The  Magdalen^
College,  6  H.  L.  Ca.  189,  the  cestuis  que  trust  might,  I  think,
have  filed  a  bill  on  their  own  behalf  without  the  Attorney-
General.  The  trustee  had  conveyed  the  legal  estate  to  the
purchasers,  and  the  cestuis  que  trtist  were  probably  the
proper  parties  to  sue,  but  the  Court  held  that  if  the
Attorney-General  was  a  necessary  party,  he  was  only  an
instrument  to  enforce  the  rights  of  those  who  were  entitled
to  the  benefit  of  the  charity,  and  stood  in  the  same  position
as  they  did  with  respect  to  those  rights  ;  and  if  the  claim-
ants on  whose  behalf  he  was  suing  were  barred,  he  was
also  barred.  The  case  has  little  or  no  bearing  upon  the
point  we  are  now  considering,  but  I  cannot  help  thinking
that  as  the  law  stood  before  the  Administration  of  Justice
Act,  the  Courts  were  bound  to  recognize  the  equitable
rights  of  the  parties  entitled  to  the  estate,  and  although
they  were  under  the  necessity  of  suing  in  the  trustee's
name,  a  Court  of  equity  could  have  interfered  to  protect
their  rights,  and  to  prevent  the  person  in  possession  setting
up  the  statute  improperly.
He  has  no  defence  against  the  claim  of  the  trustee
except  length  of  possession,  but  the  trustee  would  reply
now  (and  would  then  have  obtained  the  same  relief  in
equity),  I  am  suing  on  behalf  of  the  equitable  owner,
whose  title  accrued  only  within  twenty  years,  and  tlio
statute  therefore,  as  against  her,  is  no  defence.
