The  whole  frame  of  the  bill  rests  upon  the  assumption  that,
if  James  M.  Benedict  comes  in  under  the  attachment,  none
of  the  creditors  claiming  under  the  attachment  can  receive
their  claims  in  full.  Unless  his  claim  is  satisfied  in  full  he
cannot  be  asked  to  surrender  his  securities,  nor  can  the  com-
plainant claim  to  be  subrogated  to  his  legal  rights.  What
the  complainant  does  ask  is,  that  the  defendant  shall  be  com-
pelled to  ap{>ly  first  the  {)roceeds  under  the  deed  of  assign-
ment made  for  the  benefit  of  creditors  in  Xew  York,  and  of
the  several  collateral  securities  in  his  hands,  to  the  payment
of  his  claim  before  resorting  to  the  attached  property  or  the
funds  in  the  hands  of  the  auditors,  and  that  he  shall  be  per-
mitted to  claim  from  the  auditors  a  dividend  only  upon  such
part  of  his  claim  as  shall  not  be  satisfied  by  the  said  securi-
ties, or  that  the  said  securities  shall  be  marshalled  in  such
manner  as  to  secure  to  the  comi)lainant  and  the  other  judg-
ment creditors  under  the  attachment  the  full  benefit  and
advantage  pro  rata  of  the  said  securities.
This  end  cannot  be  attained  in  the  mode  proposed  without
driving  James  M.  Benedict  to  sue  upon  his  collaterals,  delay-
ing him  in  the  receipt  of  his  money,  compelling  him  to  incur
the  hazard,  expense,  and  delay  of  litigation,  and  at  the  same
time  arresting  the  proceedings  in  attachment  and  the  distri-
bution of  the  funds  by  the  auditore  for  an  indefinite  and  un-
certain period,  until  the  suits  upon  the  collaterals  and  the
proceedings  under  an  assignment  in  a  foreign  jurisdiction  may
be  eventually  settled.
