BLAIR t1. HARRISON.
BL.A.m et
at v. HARtRISON et aL 1 No. 64-
(Olrcolt Oourt of Appeals, Seventh 0lrcu1t. June 10. 1893.)
L
A'rl'ORNlCY AND CLIENT-FEES-LIEN ON JUDGMENT.
Where the amount due on a judgment recovered for the purchase prlee of property sold by plaintiff to defendant is paid Into a court of eqillty for distribution, plaintiff's attorneys are entitled to receive therefrom the money due them for meritorious services rendered to plaintiff In other suits growing out of such purchase, where such services were rendered with the expectation that they would be paid for out of the proceeds ot such judgment. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, afllrmed.
PARTNERSHIP-WHAT CONSTITUTES-EvIDENCE.
Proof that two men owned a ranch and herd of eattle jointly, that they managed the ranch together, rendered accounts in their joint names, and referred to themselves as a rompany, is sufficient to show that they were copartners, although they had no articles or agreement of copartnership. til Fed. Rep. 693, affirmed.
SAME-SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PARTNERS-RIGHTS OIl' CREDITORS.
A settlement betweencoparmers which determines their respective Interests In a certain partnership fund Is conclusive as to the rights "Of their Individual creditors to that fund. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, afllrmed.
"
SAMJIl-V ACATmG SETTLEMENT-EVIDENCE.
A settlement between copartners, who are both capaJble men, of a business amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and involvIng many items of account depending upon the memories of the copartners, should not be opened at the Instigation of their creditors, after the death of one of the ropartners, even though there Is a strong prima. facie showing of mistake In the settlement. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, affirmed. One of two copartners cannot pledge the partnership property to secnre his private debt, except to the extent of his Interest therein. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, affirmed. PROPERTY.
Ii.
SAME-RtGHT OIl' PARTNER TO PLEDGE
I.
EQUITY PLEADING-AMENDMENT.
After the announcement of the final decision of the chancellor upon the merits of a case, It Is proper to refuse to permit the pleadings to be amended, so as to meet objections which were raised at the hearing, two months before the decision was rendered, espec1ally where such amendment would not affect the grounds on which the decision is baselL 51 Fed. Rep. 693, afllrmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Nortn4 ern District of lllinois. In Equity. Bill in the nature of a suit of interpleader brought by John Claflin and others, composing the flrm of H. B. Claflin & Co., against Jessie I. Bennett, John A. Blair, Samuel J. Garvin, John C. Harrison, Robert L. Dunman. and others. A decree was rendered . in favor of Harrison and Dunman. An appeal was taken by Blair and Garvin. Affirmed For opinion of the lower court in this case, see Claflin v. Bennett, 51 Fed. Rep. 693. A. B. Wilson, E. F. Thompson, and O. B. McCoy, (Gardiner Lathrop and John N. Jewett, on the brief,) for appellants. Charles M. Osborn, (13.· A. Lynde and S. B. Ladd, 011 the brief,) fo!' appellees. J
Rehearing pending.
v.57F.no.2-17
Before WOODS and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and GROSSCUP. 1') District Judge. PER euRIAM;'! The: decree appealed from 18 ;a:fllrmed, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of Judge Blodgett in the court below.
WOOD et aL v. PERKINS. .,(Olrcult Court.D. MasSachusetts. August 22,1893.) No.8,l2,0. 1. EQUITY-JURISDICTION-ABSOLUTE CONVEYANCE-TRuST ARISING UPON CON. '1'lblPoRANEOUS AGBEkMEmT.
Respondent, by a written agreement, in consideration of conveyances to him of certain "milling locations," promliised to pay to complainants certaim stloek ·111 n "mining pool." Oml agreements between the parties provided that rC!'lpondent was to f9rm the pool, but, the conveyances were absolubl· On, their face. Heltl, that the facts created a trust, and equity hadjllrisdiction of a bill toepforce the delivery ot the stock. Equit)'fljur!sdlction was.not defentedby the fact that respondent had disposed of the stock for cash.'rhe equitable would extend to the and certain sum so received, although, in the state where the EiWt; \Vl,lS brought, au .actlon for money had and received lies for what ill due In·.equlty and1good ,conscience.
9.
'SAMlil.."..S:A.LEOF TRUSTl'ROPERTy......PROCEEDS CHARGED WITH .THE TRUST.
8.
8AME-ORAL AGREEMENT-CoNSIDERATION·
. Equity jurisdiction Is not defeated in such a case by the fact that the ·,tru8t a/ll'eement was oral, and without consideration, since the conveythe verbal agreement In part, and were a ances torespolldent sufllC!lent cpnsideratlontherefor. .
'-·8.urE-CONTEMPORANEOUS OBALAND WRITTEN AGBEEMENTS.
The fact that complainant alleges two contracts-one written, and absolute on its face, the other oral, and purporting to create a trust-will not defea.tthejurisdi{:tion of a. court of· equity 10 enforce the trust, when It appears .that the twocont;racts were parts of the imme tra.nsactlon. 5. SA:M:E-LACHES-ExPREssTRUST. Lapse of. time, unless exceptionally great, is no defense to a suit to enforce an express trust, wben the acts cbaJ,'ged agaln$t respondent amount to a complete breach of trust, and have been industriously and fraudulently concealf'd. Speidel v. Henrici, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 610, 120 U. S. 377, distinguished.
.In Equity. Bill by Alvinus B. Wood and others against Thomas II. Perkins to enforce a trust. Heard on demutrer to the bilL De. ,HenryS.:pewey, for c()mplainants. Francis peabody, tOr defendant.
. PUTNAM, .Circuit respondent in this. case received from. two of the comp!Mnants, and the assignor of the other, a deed or deeds of several tracts of mineral lands on the north shore of Lake Superior. The rights, as spoken of in some places, were ''min'ing locations/"bnt whether strictly such, or whether the laiid,was held, the interests were hereditaments, and partook of the realty; so that, for the purposes of thfl case at bar, they stand the