Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/769

 LEE V. HOLLISTEB. 757 �jurisdiction of a court of equity bas been frequently sustained in sucb a case, or in very analogous ones. Humes v. Scruggs, M U. S. 23; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163; Massey v. AUen, 7 N. B. Eeg. 401; Shackleford v. Collier, 6 Bush, 149; Pratt V. Curtis, 6 N. B, Eeg. 139. �It is proven that the original note of Leathers and Hollis- ter was discounted at the request of Leathers, who was a direetor in the bank, and that the proceeds were placed to bis credit. The proceeds of each note, as discounted, were placed to the credit of Leathers, who gave his check for the amount of the matured note and took it up. The casbier testified that the proceeds of the renewals were always placed to Leathers' credit, upon the express understanding that tbey wetre to be used to pay the maturing note. �Tbe question, whether or not the giving of these cbecks for the amounts of the matured notes as tbey fell due and their surrender to bim is a payment, is one about which there is some conflict of authority. Mr. Parsons tbinks such facts make a payment. 2 Parsons, Bills and Notes, 203 ; see, aiso, Bank Comnwnwealth v. Letcher, 3 J, J. Mars. 195 ; 1 Dana, 83. �I am, bowever, of the opinion that the debt created in Jan- uary, 1873, bas never been paid, and that these notes were renewals which merely changed the evidence of the debt. The entering of the credits to Leathers when each note was dis- counted, and his giving his check for the amount of the ma- tured note, was simply a mode by which the evidence of the debt was changed. 2 Daniells, Neg. Inst. 260 ; McLaughlin v. Bank Poiomac, 7 How. 228; Lowrey v. Fisher, 2 Bush, 74; Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 Bush, 55. �Tbe next inquiry is whether or not these conveyances were made without valuable considerations ; and tbis brings us to consider the efiect of the post-nuptial paroi agreement. �When Mr. HoUister married in 1850 he beeame, by virtue of his marriage, entitled to collect and reduce into possession all of his wife's personal estate. This was subject to the wife's equitable right of settlement, but as the evidence shows there was no such right in the wife in tbis case, we shall ����