Per Curiam..
The history of the litigation is adequately stated in a previous opinion in the cause by. the same vice-chancellor, reported in 91 N. J. Eq. 390. As he there states, .the. equity suit grew out of a judgment at law recovered by the present appellants against the corporation respondent, and affirmed by this court in 93 N. J. Law 438. After paying the judgment,.the corporation sought-to have the money impounded generally to meet judgments of outside parties, relating to, "the subject-matter, when, and as recovered against the coaporation.
-Such-wholesale.relief the vice-chancellor denied (91 N. J. Eq. 390), saying that-.tiO invoke an. equity, against.the fund thecomplainant (respondent here) “must point out with certainty-and definiteness: the double liability as to amount, and person and establish it by satisfactory proof.” Complainant did not appeal,, but later amended the bill setting up. a specific liability within the terms of the decision, and obtained the decree from which defendant has now appealed. ”
We conclude that the decree should be affirmed, for" the reasons given by the learned vice-chancellor in his second opinion (93 N. J. Eq. 70), which, of course, should be read in connection with, and as complementary to, the earlier one reported in 91 N. J. Eq. 390.
For affirmance — -Tiie Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner) Ackerson, Van Buskjrk- — 15. . ...
. For reversal — None.