Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/34

 OOMBINATION TBUST CO. V. WEED. 27 �loan," does norsustain his allegation respeeting this sum; that it is not sustained by any entry in the tooks, so far as appears, while it was the duty of this witness to make a,n entry, if his statement is correct; that the mtness is unsup- ported by any other evidence, and is contradicted by the de- fendant ; that he f ell into a very singular error in giving us the "statement relative to said loan" from the books — forbid a reliance upon this witness' testimony respeeting this sum. Nor have we overlooked the statement of Mr. Wheeler respeet- ing "other profits" said to be realized by the defendant Weed. But this statement is contradicted by the defendant, and of itself is too shadowy and uncertain to be of value on this bearing. �Why, therefore, should not the defendant be allowed to proceed on his contract to obtain satisfaction of the amount thus appearing to be due ? While it is unpaid the plaintiffs have no equity that would justify the court in restraining the defendant from proceeding to this extent. We ean only inter- fere 60 far as is necessary to proteet the plaintiffs against danger of loss from the alleged misapplication of the $2,000 referred to. �The "unissued stock" was, as the bill states, left with the Company to be applied to the "advancement of its best inter- ests." The directors were thus made the judges of how it could most advantageously be used for this purpose. That they applied it to raising money for the company is not a subject of complaint. We have treated Mr. Weed as the holder of the securities, as, for the purposes of this hearing, at least, seemed necessary. �An order will be drawn modifying the decree in accordance with this opinion. �Afterwards the court entered the foUowing decree : �"And now, April 8, 1880, a motion to continue the injuno- tion heretofore granted by the court of common pleas, No. 3, of the city and county of Philadelphia, having been argued on affidavit filed by the plaintiff, and on the answer of the defendant Weed, it is ordered that unless the said plaintiffs, or either fo them, shall pay into court before Tuesday, April ����