20 FEDERAL 1>.E1>on·rEn.
property, and is in nowise intended to control the administration or
disposition of it, or to affect the right or relation of the ccstai que
trust, the latter is not a necessary party. Story, Eq, Pl. § 212;
Carey v. Brown, 92 U. S. 172.
In this case the trustee merely seeks to obtain the trust fund——the
money due on the decree against Ben Holladay-for the use of White,
the cestui que trust, according to the purport and effect of the trust.
X It is also insisted that the several persons, to-wit, Thomas Brown,
W. H. Hampton, George W. Weilder, W. L. Halsey, Ben Holladay,
Jr., L. lt. Patton, and the Oregon Beal Estate Company, who held
, the legal title to much of this property when it was transferred or
conveyed to Joseph Holladay, are necessary parties defendant to the
suit. These parties were the mere agents and employes of Ben Hol-
laday, and held this property in trust for him as a matter of conveny
ience, and absolutely subject to his direction. They were naked
trustees without interest or discretion. _
And, ytrst, this is not a purely creditors’ bill, in which the plaintiff
seeks to discover, and subject to the payment of his debt, equitable as;
sets in the hands of the debtor, or property which he has transferred
to others, under such circumstances as to leave an equitable interest
in himself; but it is a suit to set aside specific covinous transfers
and conveyances made by the debtor, which obstruct and prevent the
plaintiff from enforcing his decree against the former by execution
J levied on the property included in such transfers or conveyances.
So far as Ben Holladay is concerned, his indebtedness to the assignor
of the plaintiff is established by the decree, and is no longer open to
controversy; and the transfers and conveyances in question are good
against him, and can only be avoided at the suit of a creditor. He
has, then, no interest in this controversy. His indebtedness is nxed,
and the property sought to be affected has passed beyond his control,
and he cannot be prejudiced, in any legal sense, by a decree which
may subject it to the payment of his debts. In re Estes, 6 Sawy.
_ 459; Collinson v. Jackson, 8 Sawy. 365; Bump, Fraud. Conv. 548;
Wait, Fraud. Conv. §§ 129, 171; Fox v. Moyer, 54 N. Y. 128.
V It follows that while Ben Holladay is a proper party to this suit,
he is not a necessary one, and might have been omitted from the bill.
And his agents and trustees, who conveyed this property to Joseph
Holladay under his direction, have less interest in the suit, or the
subject-matter of it, if possible, than he has. As against them, also,
the conveyances are good. They passed the legal title to Joseph
Holladay. These parties have no longer any interest in the property
or power over it. No relief is sought against them, and they cannot
be prejudiced by any decree that may be given in the suit. The case
. of Gaylorrds v. Kclshaw, 1 Wall. 81, cited by counsel for Joseph Hol-
laday, decides nothing to the contrary of this. Kelshaw, being the
debtor and grantor in the alleged fraudulent conveyance, was a proper,
although not a necessary, party in that case. But, being made a