Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/288

 SUTHEELAND ». STEAW. 281 �ant, with whom there was to be no collusion to defeat the payment of the $4,400 by Straw to Sutherland. �From this affidavit it appears that Fichett had arrangea for the sale of the Eureka slate quarry for the sum of $30,000, on behalf of Straw and Chapin, and that these parties were desirous that the sale should not be communicated to Suther- land, but should be delayed and not eompleted until after bis return to Chicago, when they would be ready to convey the property. �In the opinion of the court this af&davit is of but little or no consequence, as it does not show any collusion of Straw and Chapin with this affiant to defeat the sale, but rather an arrangement on their part to carry ont and complete it after Sutherland returns home. There may bave existed very satisf actory reasons for the respondents wishing to thus delay the disposai of this estate, and it would by no means follow that there was on their part, by such delay, any breach of the condition of Straw's bond to the complainant. �Straw bas filed his affidavit denying ail fraud in the settle- ment, and averring that at the time, December 20th, he paid complainant $1,000 in cash, and gave a note for $1,000, since paid; that he also gave him the bond for $8,000, upon whicb an action was commenced in this court, January 22, 1880, and served on him February 3d; that Sutherland bas nerer offered to refund these payments made to him, and bas assigned to these parties said bond now in suit. �Upon this state of facts bave the respondents a right to bave a decree entered dismissing the bill without costs ? The counsel have not, on either side, referred the court to any authorities bearing upon the question bere involved, and the researehes of the court bave not disclosed any case decisive of the matter. Many authorities are to be found in the decisions of the various courts of equity in Great Britain bearing upon the question of compromises of pending suits, and bow far such compromises ean be enforced by motion in the cause, and under what cireumstances supplementary pro- ceedings may be required to perfect and complete such set- tlements. The latest authority which I have met with is ����