144 McKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND.

any such there should be; and the language of the agreement does,
as this defendant apprehends, indicate, with sufficient explicitness,
that object, which only this defendant could have had any rational
motive for acceding to, or the said Heyland could, with any ap-
pearance of justice or propriety, propose to him."

And this defendant further answered, in these words: "That he
does know Marcus Heyland to be insolvent, and a bankrupt; that
he has reason to believe, that the affairs of the house of William
& John Bell & Co. have been, and continue to be, somewhat de-
ranged. But he is well informed, that the high and improving
prices of American produce in England, in consequence of the war
* between that country and the United States, have greatly
154 restored the declining affairs of that house. Defendant did
receive from Marcus Heyland the sum of money mentioned in com-
plainant's bill. Defendant did enter into certain agreements with
Heyland, as heretofore explained in this answer. That at the time
the money was paid into his hands by Heyland, defendant did not
expect it would be appropriated to the payment of Heyland's
creditors in England. Defendant denies, that said money was a
deposit in his hands for the use and benefit of Heyland's creditors
in England."

On the 16th of July, 1821, the defendant, John Bell, filed his
answer; in which he admits, in substance, all the circumstances as
set forth by the plaintiffs; and insists, that the money paid over
by Heyland to Thompson, under the agreement of the 8th January,
1811, was intended to be, and should be, first applied in satisfac-
tion of those bills drawn by Heyland.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, referring to the previous pro-
ceedings, by which it appeared, that the defendant, Thompson,
had received from Heyland, (who was then dead,) the sum of
£8.889 5s. 4d. sterling, for the benefit of the plaintiffs, prayed,
that he should be ordered to bring that sum with interest, into
Court, to be applied and distributed under the direction of the
Chancellor.

JOHNSON, C., 14th December, 1822.—Ordered, That Hugh
Thompson, the trustee in the petition named, bring into this Court
the sum of money mentioned, on or before the 15th day of January
next, or shew good cause why the same should not be brought in:
Provided a copy of the petition, and of this order, are served on
him before the last day of this month.

It appears that the service was made as required.

JOHNSON, C., 10th May, 1823.—On the application of the com-
plainants, it is ordered, that on the hearing of the motion made
for the purpose of compelling the defendant to bring money into