Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/320

 308 FEDERAL EBPOBTER; �ber, 1866, in the chaneery court of Lawrence county, Ala- bama, against Prewitt and his "wife, Bradlejr, Wilson & Co., and.Walker and others. This suit was pending when the settlement with Chapman was made, and the defendants had filed their answers therein, A decree was rendered in 1874 sustaining the marriage settlement, and dismissing the bill. In December, 1870, another suit was commenced for the same purpose by one Eobert H. Wilson, Prewitt's assignee in bank- ruptcy, in the circuit court of the United States for the north- ern district of Alabama ; and that court, in April, 1878, made a decree declaring the marriage settlement fraudulent and void. Both of these decrees were appealed, the former to the su- preme court of Alabama, and the latter to the supreme court of the United States, and these appeala are still pending; so that the ultimate fate of the security which was assigned to Chapman in May, 1867, is yet undetermined. The bill in this case was not filed untU the fifteenth day of October, 1879, more than 12 years after the transaction took place which i,t assails. It seeks to set aside the settlement on the grounds of fraud, mistake, and want of consideration. It aUeges that Bradley, Wilson & Oo., at thô time of the. settlement, and as an inducement thereto, represented thernselves to be insolvent, when, in truth, they were not insolvent ; that they represented the security contained in the marriage settlement to be good and valid, when, in fact, it was fraudulent and void; and that they coneealed the fact that a suit had already been instituted against Prewitt and thernselves to set the marriage settlement aside. It alleges that the complainant Chapman was ignorant of the facts, and was deeeived by these repre- sentations and coneealments, and was thus induced to make the settlement, which he would not have done had he known the truth. The bill is filed against the succession of Wilson, as before stated, and prays that the settlement of May, 1867, may be set aside, and that the complainant may be admitted as a crediter of the succession, and may have a decree for the payment of his entire claim against Bradley, Wilson & Co., with the accumulated interest. �The defendants, who are the widow and executors of Wil- ����