Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/326

 314 ' FEDEIiAL REPORTER. �of the lànds specifioally dedieated to that purpose; that he is satisfied Governor Chapman would not have made the settle- ment but for the belief that said debt was thus proteeted ; that the marriage settlement has been sustained in a ohaneery court of Alabama, and an appeal from that decision ia now pending, and has been pronounced fraudaient and void by a decision of the circuit court of the United States, and an appeal from that decision is also pending ; that be, Walker, does not know when Governor Chapman first learned of the pendency of the former suit, buthis recollection is that he knew of it before the commencement of the latter suit; that in the sottlrment he acted as the mutual friend of both parties, and not as attorney of either, and that, from his belief in the vaHdity of the marriage settlement, he.should have advised Governor Chapman to accept the settlement, notwithstandingthe pend- ency of the chancery suit, had that been adverted to. �If to this evidence of Mr. Walker we add that of Mr. Bibb, one of the firm of Bradley, Wilson & Co., who testified very fully as to their embarrassment and supposed insolvency ; of their efforts to compromise with their creditors in good fait h ; of tlaeir desire to seoure Governor Chapman in particular, and their offer to turn over to him the Prewitt claim, and of their firm belief in the validity of that claim, — it would be asking the court to go a great way to make a decree declaring the transaction void on the ground of misrepresentation, upon the evidence of the complainant alone, given so manyyears after the happening of the events, however upright in motive and free from ail intention to di^tort the facts we may concede that evidence to be. �The remaining ground of relief is the failure of the consid- eration of the compromise. First, Bradley, Wilson & Co. did not guaranty the claim against Prewitt, but expressly de- clined doing so. Chapman took it at his own risk. The notes were indorsed "without recourse," showing that the transfex was made and accepted without any guaranty, at least so far as relates to the responsibility of Prewitt. Be- Bideg, the evidence shows that Prewitt was notoriously insolv- ent, and therefore it is not reasonable to suppose that Brad- ����