delivered the opinion of the. Court. This is an appeal from .a decree in equity, of the Circuit Court for the district of Vir *315 gittia, tb -which the folio wing objections have been líiadé; ■

■1 hti That there is a defect of parties. Although all the persons in interest are'made ■defendants to the bill, yet ‘nbne of them had appeared to it except the appellant,'on whose'answer, and the proofs in the cause' the decree was made. '

2d. Another Objection is, that there was competent relief at law against the usurious contract stated in the bill; but as no defence of this kind was there set Up, a Court- of Chancery ought not to have interfered, especially after judgment had been obtained on the bills, and even on the prison bounds bonds, Which were taken on the execution which had issued •on those judgments. '

■3d. It is also contended, that there was no usury in any of the contracts between the appellant and Carter Beverley, and that the sale of the negroes under the deed -of trust was fair, and in strict pursuance of the authority vested in the trustee.

4th, and lastly ; Admitting the -usury, and a franc! In the sale, it is insisted that the respondent, being an entire stranger to tírese transactions,-had no right to call the appellant to account, or to any relief as against him.

The Court has had under its consideration all these-objections ; but will now give its opinion only on the first of them. We are all satisfied, that when this decree was pronounced, the case was not prepared for a final hearing. The bills, which had been drawn by P. R. Beverley, having passed by Marshall into the hands of third persons, who had *316 obtained judgments on them, and it being ,a principal object of the suit to enjoin further proceedings on them, the parties in whose favour they were rendered, ought not only to have been made defendants, but a perpetual injunction ought not to have been decreed until their answers were filed. It was not enough in their absence that the complainant should state, and the defendant admit, that the latter had paid these judgments, and was now the only person interested in them. This might be done by collusion, and although that may not be the case here, it is not the course of a Court of Equity, to make a decree which is to operate directly upon the parties in interest, as the perpetual injunction does here, without affording them an opportunity of being heard. For tliis error, the decree must be reversed, and the. cause remanded for further proceedings.

Decree reversed.

Decree. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court, for the district of Virginia, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion-of this Court, that the .said Circuit Court erred in perpetually en-. joining the proceedings On the judgments obtained against the respondent Peter R. Beverley, and the appellant, Horace Marshall, because the bills of exchange, which had been drawn by the said Peter R. Beverley, had passed into the hands of third persons, by whom the said judgments had been obtained, and before the answers of such creditors,, who had been made defendants to said bill of complaint, had come *317 in. It is therefore decreed and ordered, that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this casé be, and the same is hereby, reversed and annulled. And it is further ordered, that the said cause be remanded to the said Circuit Court for further proceedings to be had therein according to law.