m BS txsQ. 843 �party or peraon properly applying to the court therefor in the case. �3. It is claimed on behalf of the respondent, Chapman, that, although the legal estate in the lands in question became vested in Mr. Ogden, and although, from a period long prior to these deeds, he claimed to hold to his own use the bene- ficiai or equitable interest which had formerly belonged.to the bankrupts, that, as to the interest of the bankrupt Hyde, he, Chapman, is in fact the assignee of that interest by another and independent title, anterior and guperior to that under which Ogden claimed to have obtained the same interest as the assignee of Hyde, and that the circumstances under ■which Ogden acquired the legal title to Hyde's share were such as in law and equity made him a trustee for the assignee of this beneficiai interest of Hyde. Hence it is argued 'that, as Ogden was a trustee for Hyde's assignee, and as Chapman is Hyde's assignee, Ogden and his representatives cannot raise this question with Chapman ; that, Ogden being Chapman'a trustee, he and his representatives cannot attack his title; that they are bound, in ail things, to protect and defend the title and interest of Chapman in the lands to which the trust relates. But the argument is fallacious, and the point wholly irrelevant to the present inquiry. Whatever title Chapman may have to Hyde's interest, acquired before and independ- ently of these deods, cannot be affected or impaired by the vacating of the deeds; and, as to any such title, Ogden's attack on these deeds is in no sense a violation of any rela- tion or duty of trust which may exist in reference to such earlier title. In respect to the title claimed by Chapman to bave been created in him under these deeds themselves, no relation of trustee and cestui que trust can possibly arise be- tween the parties if the deeds are void, or were acquired by a fraud, to which, as alleged in the petition, Chapman was a party. No party can claim the benefits and protection due to a cestui que trust, who bas acquired the apparent interest of a cestui que trust by means of a fraud practieed tipon or against the rights of the alleged trustee. Such a claim would be too absurd for discussion. I have, therefore, treated as ����
