The Court is of opinion that the demurrer ought to be allowed, for several reasons.

The award does not certainly show how much or whether anything is due from L. K. Clifton to the complainant, nor does it contain any statement from which either of these points can be rendered certain. Whether there was any stock in trade, — how many of the debts of the firm were desperate, — and, in fact, as to the whole matter in dispute we are left entirely uncertain. Again, the bill is founded solely on the award: there has been no recovery of any sum against L. K. Clifton. The object of the complainant seems to have been, first to obtain a decree against him for the debt and then a decree for its satisfaction from E. Clifton. This cannot be done. The complainant ought first to have recovered his demand at law against L. K. Clifton, proceeded as far as he could in the collection of it, and if owing to the fraudulent contrivance of L. K. & E. Clifton he could not obtain satisfaction, then, and not before, come into this Court. 1 Vern. 398. Let the demurrer be allowed and the bill dismissed. '