#### McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., Appellant, *v.*Easton Trust Co.

*Equity*— Findings *of fact*— Appeals.

In a suit in equity to compel a trust company to pay plaintiff, a contractor, funds alleged to have been deposited for plaintiff with defendant by certain banks, where it appeared that plaintiff had agreed to waive its mechanics’ lien in consideration of the deposit and payment to it of such funds, the bill was properly dismissed where there were findings supported by ’evidence that no funds had been deposited with defendant out of which plaintiff could be paid.

Argued March 10, 1915.

Appeal, No. 341, Jan. T.,1914, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Northampton Co., July T., 1913, No. 1, in equity, dismissing bill to enforce an equitable assignment, in case of McClintic-Marshall Construction Company v. The Easton Trust Company, The Easton Trust Company, Trustee, the Easton Board of Trade, The Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Company, A. A. Chidsey, Trustee in Bankruptcy of The Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Company, Fred R. Drake, A. D. *585Chidsey and Henry G. Siegfried, Attomeys-in-Fact under the guaranty agreement with the Board of Trade, as well as Pledgees of the bonds issued under the Mortgage of The Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Company to The Easton Trust Company, Trustee; and W. J. Daub, Chester Snyder, B. E. James, Henry G. Siegfried, A. D. Chidsey, E. J. Bichards, J. Y. Bull and Allen Carpenter, Members of the Executive Committee or Council of The Easton Board of Trade.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestre'zat, Elkin, Stewart and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity to enforce an alleged equitable assignment. Before Stewart, J.

From the record it appeared that The Hawley DownDraft Furnace Company agreed with the Easton Board of Trade and certain banks that funds should be deposited with the Easton Trust Company for the payment of the plaintiff, a contractor, in consideration of which plaintiff agreed to waive the lien to which it would be entitled for work and labor in and about the construction of portions of the plant of The Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Company.

Defendant’s tenth request for findings of fact and the answer thereto were as follows:

“Tenth. The Easton Trust Company has not now and never has had in its possession and custody' any moneys furnished by the banks of the City of Easton out of funds to be provided in accordance with the agreement between The Hawley Down-Draft Furnace Company and the Easton Board of Trade whereby it could pay to the Mc-Clintic-Marshall Company any sum claimed to be due by the McClintic-Marshall Company from Hawley DownDraft Furnace Company.

“Answer. I so find.”

The court’s fourteenth finding of fact was as follows:

“Fourteenth. That the Hawley Company did not pay the balance due, nor did it furnish any funds to The Easton Trust Company to pay this balance, nor did the *586Board of Trade furnish the funds to pay this balance, nor did the banks of the City of Easton furnish any funds to pay this balance.”

March 22, 1915:

The findings of the court were supported by evidence.

The court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff; appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in dismissing the bill.

*Calvin F. Smith,*of *Smith, Paff & Lanb,*and *John G. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Edward J. Fox,*of *Edward J.*and *James W. Fox,*for appellee.

Pee Cueiam,

No cause has been shown why the answer of the court below to defendant’s tenth request for a finding of fact, or the court’s own ‘fourteenth finding, ought to be disturbed. On these findings of fact the appeal is dismissed.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.