Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/24

 : ?-2 FEDEBAIJ.RBPORTBB. �oonnection with'the dispatch apd facility witb which the �decree was obtained in the court, and the fact that Hughes �then had in his control ample means with which to pay off �the Williams debt, certainly tends cogently to prove that the �proceedings in court were purely friendly, and preconcerted �for the purpose of effecting under their color the sale made by �Hughes to Hyman, which the executer had ref used to ratify hy �executing and returning the deed; but as I do not rest my �^conclusions ^s to the merits of the case on this feature of the �proof, I will not enlarge upon it. There is.no propf in the �record sbpwing, or. tcnding to sh.ow, that the sum of _H5,000 �.p^jd by defendant, IJynian for the pren^is^ ,was not, at the �tin\e Jiepurch^s^d, a, fair price^ and, a,ll that the. property was �worth;., ., ■ ,,,..,. :]\ ; . .. j ,;. , .; ,,, :,^. . , ,,! ,.■ �, . Ilp9;ct. these -f a<;ts cq^ipl^inai^ts cl^im the, right -to , redeem, �.cn,^Ij^ g?;9?iC.d, t^^it the,^^le.fl^de^ sjrhich, JlyiAatt.claipaa title �( waft yDiiad^ .in, picir^uance , pf , t% , (^cree -.wade ; ii^ ^ ^he caise. 6f �t^i;8. .WAiliap^s, agftia^t , :Ciic,^^j^ P, "^^shlpgton ^nd; Lpiftqyne, �and that they were not parties to said.suit, [i^nd ,ar?, .npt �J^o^^d tftil'i'i^' A??)^^^! 'i^*!'?:® t^'i^fW ; °^ tl^Pf s^lf!^¥ia.d,eii'i| V^^' �^^jijasftcg;tl?,erppf(v, that.s^id sa,le.;v^3S{inra;ll e^effia^l r^^pe/jtsa �jp.dic;e^l ,sal|e,,apd^ the fpi^closflr^ of said ti;ust dea^ was,jn �.^^pct uc^er, gaid .^pfi^P»:, *n^.:00* 8olely,-,un.de|r >the,,C9ntract �iPpwp;^^ cppfecred.PA Mr.,l^eji^9yne by t^e trust ,d|eed ;-r-yhile �.0X.^e part of ,the defendant^, it, jis ipg^^};|ed that.ihe,porEi,plain- �aflktft were not neceseiary, par/ties ,tp the bill; that their inter- �ests; were, repre^entedbythpexecutor; and further, that the �execu^tpr was clothed with,,8nch powers of sale ,upder the �will as to draw to hin^ the fee pf the land upon which his �power was to operat^.. The first question to be consid- �ered is, who- had the fee in , the equity of redemption of this �land at the time of the suit :^n question? The thir^ clause �of the will pf John A. Washington expressly devises this land, �with his other real estate, to his children, and I think there �is no room for doubt, and hardly for argument, that these �complainants held the fee in the equity of redemption. �The Williams bill was filed for the purpose of having an �account taken as to the amount due Mrs. Williams and ��� �