case at the second seal before Hilary term Mr baron clark sit for Lord  chancellor three creditor who be within the term of a trust create by a will  for the payment of debt bring a bill to carry the trust of the will into  execution the rest of the creditor bring a second bill for the same purpose  and obtain a order at the roll that both bill may be refer to a master to  certify which will be most for the creditor benefit Mr baron clark discharge  the order be of opinion it have never be reduce to general rule that one bill  shall be depend only where a number of creditor be concern a motion be make to  discharge a order of the master of the roll to refer two bill bring by  different creditor of one Mr price decease to a master to certify which suit  will be most for the benefit of the creditor Mr price have by will appoint  trustee over a particular fund for the payment of such of his creditor by  mortgage bind account or otherwise as be comprise in a schedule annex to the  will three of these creditor in behalf of themselves and other bring a bill to  carry the trust of this will into execution n the rest of the schedule  creditor object to the frame of this bill and suspect collusion between the  plaintiff and the relation of Mr price the testator who claim annuity under  his will bring a second bill in behalf of themselves and all the schedule  creditor for the same purpose and at a former seal obtain this order ex part  from the master of the roll Mr baron clark suppose both these bill shall come  to a hear and the first shall appear to be by collusion as be suggest it will  then clear be dismiss with cost it be allow this be the first order that have  ever be make of the kind atkins see no difference between this case of trust  creditor and where all happen to be simple contract creditor the latter may  certain bring different bill how will the two cause be in a different state  after the master report than it be in now for it be agree by counsel on both  side that if the master shall report the second the most proper bill yet the  court will not preclude the plaintiff in the first from go on if they think  fit nor can the master report be make use of at the hear as evidence of the  impropriety of the first and if the court shall be of opinion that justice may  be obtain on the first they will not take into their consideration whether it  be in every respect as proper frame as the second bill it have never be reduce  to a general rule nor ever can that one bill shall be depend only where there  be a number of creditor concern if the first bill be so collusive as that the  master must see it on the face of it there can be no harm to the plaintiff in  the second to let it proceed because then the court will see if in the same  light and as I say before dismiss it with cost and consequent will not lessen  the fund for payment of debt which be the principal argument that have be use  by the plaintiff in the second bill as to the case mention of infant where  there be two suit bring by different prochein army and a reference to a master  to certify which be the proper there the court be their guardian and will take  care what be do be for their benefit and therefore be a very different case  from the present I do not find there have ever be such a order make as be now  move to be discharge and will rather tend to create expense than to save it  and as the master the roll make the order mere ex part now it be controvert I  must be determine by my own judgement and for the reason I have give be of  opinion it ought to be discharge atkins er p