Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/474

 462 TEDEKAL BEPOBTEE. �lieves, claim to hald the bonds as lawfully pledged to them to seoure some debt or demand to her unknown, and intend to sell thein at auetion ; that the. defendants sometimes claim that the bonds were pledged to them by the plaintifi's husband, Edward Matthewa ; but, if so, he had no authority so to pledge them, and that the defendants, when they received the bonds, knew that they were her property; and that if these bonds were eo received by the defendants it was without considera- tion, or upon a contract void in law; that the defendants have refused to surrender the bonds to the plaintiii. �The defendants answered that they held a bond of Edward Matthews for $250,000, secured by mortgage upon real estate in the city of New York, as security for the notes of Nathan Matthews, a brother of Ed\vard, exceeding $200,000; that Edward was deairous of obtainijig a surrender of this bond and mortgage, and delivered to them the railroad bonds, March 6, 1877, in consideration of such surrender. They state fuUy the circumstances o^ this transaction, and annex to their answer a written agreement between them and Nathan and Edward Matthews concerning the same. They allege that Edward Matthews is the real party plaintiff,: and that the title of Virginia B. Matthews is nominal and colorable. �The plaintiff amended her bill, and set up the satne facts in respect to the exchange of the railroad bonds for the bond and mortgage which had been stated in the defendants' answer, and averred that the bond and mortgage were given as security for certain notes of Edward Matthews which were void for usury by the laws of New York, where they were delivered and negotiated ; that the defendants held the bond and mortgage as trustees for pne Thomas Uphara and his creditors; that before the agreement for the exchange was made, jNathan Matthews falsely represented to Edward that Thomas Upham, or the defendants, held $200,000 of the notes of Edward, for which the bond and mortgage were given as collateral;, that, when the exchange \fras made, the defendants and their attorney falsely made a similar state- ment; whereas, in fact, JJp}m,m. and the defendants, as his trustees, held the bond and mortgage aa ^curity for the notes ��� �