Court Opinion

ID: 8629373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:35:12.986516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:42.929026
License: Public Domain

MORSELL, Circuit Judge,
after reviewing the facts in the bill and answer, and remarking that the charges in the bill carefully met and denied by the answer, as far as charges against these defendants, proceeds to inquire whether there are such circumstances appearing upon the complainants’ case as would be equivalent to the testimony of a witness in support of the answer upon these points denied by belief only, and, after detailing them, concludes that these facts and circumstances appear to me to be entirely inconsistent with the supposition that there was any lien or trust on the stock of goods conveyed by the deed, as claimed by the complainant, Carter, and that these circumstances, taken in connection with the answer, which expressly denies all notice of such lien, are sufficient to overcome the allegations in the bill. If there even were such an agreement as stated in the bill, I think it must be considered as personal, and that the complainant trusted to the personal security and personal contract of Washington, of which contract the defendants have had no notice. The fact that Carter still enjoys the benefit of the part of the agreement which gave him possession of so great a part of the goods, thereby affirming the agreement, as before alluded to, his silence again during a period of time long enough to have made himself more fully acquainted with all the circumstances he complains of without warning the public thereof, and the other circumstances before stated, are sufficient in my mind to show that there is no truth in the charge. I think the condition also sufficient]}' proved, and on the whole think the injunction ought to be dissolved.