Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/700

 686 rKDBBlIi BBPOBXBB. �This beîng a recognized doctrine of equity, I have now to inquire -whether there was an acquiescence in the action of Frederick Marx, in regard to the confederate bonds, auch as created counter equities which would be overthrown by grant- ing the relief sought by the complainant and petitioners in this cause. �It abundantly appears from the record that to grant this relief would sweep away the whole estate of Frederick Marx, and leave nothing for his creditors at large, -whose claims exceed $5,000. It is claimed in the pleadings, and is doubt- less conceded by ail the parties to this cause, that Frederick Marx was an honorable man, and would not have contracted debts to 80 large an amount as $5,000 if he had not felt assured that no reclamation would be made upon him for his illegal investment in confederate bonds. But even though he had been capable of incurriùg these debts in a condition of conscious insolvency, yet, if suit had been brought within a reasonable time after the close of the war, his credit would, most probably, have been so impaired that the present cred- itors of the estate would not have been apt to trust him to the extent of $5,000. �I cannot but belle ve that this large indebtedness to general creditors is the resuit of the acquiescence of the complainant and petitioners in his illegal investments for a period of 12 years after they could have sued him, and during the whole remainder of his life. By their own neglect to sue they per- petuated his credit with the public, and they threw him ofif his guard in the contraction of debts. It is very clear that they might have sued as early as the spring of 1866, when the courts of Virginia were re-instafced under the Pierpoint government. The stay laws of Virginia, enacted during the war, affected little other than final process for the collection of. debts, and sales under decrees and tnast deeds. They for- bade no other proceedings in court than trials by jury, and put no restriction whatever upon suits in equity. So, likewise, the stay laws of 1866 and 1867 stayed only the "collection of debts." Suits might be brought for the establishment of debts ad liUtum,in Virginia, from the spring of 1866 to the present ����