166 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

C. Gittings, then an infant, who was married, in January, 1823,
to the defendant Magill; that the defendant Gittings, who was
178 her *gaurdian, after her marriage, assigned these notes,
and with them the negroes conveyed to secure the payment
of the note for $326.81, which were worth more than that amount,
to Magill; that Magill and Harding agreed with the plaintiff, that
those negroes should be applied to the payment of the note for
$500, if they should be more than sufficient for the satisfaction of
the note of $326.81; that the debt of $326.81, was afterwards set-
tled between Harding and Magill, notwithstanding which, Magill,
on the 17th of October, 1823, by a bill of sale, conveyed those two
negroes, John and Westley. to Lloyd Gittings, in trust, for the
use of the infant children of Harding; he, Harding, being then
insolvent; and that Magill had brought suit, and obtained judg-
ment against this plaintiff at law, on the note for $500, upon which
he had sued out and levied an execution upon the property of this
plaintiff. Upon which the bill prayed, that the proceedings at
law might be stayed by injunction and for relief, &c. An injunc-
tion was granted accordingly.

On the 16th of May, 1825, the defendant Magill put in his
answer, in which he sajs, that the defendant Gittings, as the
guardian of his Magill's wife, passed a final account with the
Orphans' Court; and among others, assigned to her the two notes,
as stated in the bill; that Harding, on the 28th of February, 1823,
delivered to this defendant, the two negroes John and Westley, in
full satisfaction of the note for 8326.81, which sale and delivery was
fair and bona frde; that he afterwards hired those negroes to Hard-
ing; that being moved by the poor and destitute situation of Hard-
ing. whose wife is the sister of the wife of this defendant, he, Magill.
did convey those negroes in trust for the use of Harding's infant
children, as stated in the bill; and he denies, that he ever agreed,
that those negroes should be sold, and that the amount for which
they sold over the sum of $320.81, should be applied towards the
payment of the note for $500; that this defendant has been in-
formed by the defendant Gittiugs, and this defendant believes,
that the late Abraham Jones, the testator of the plaintiff, was not
the mere surety of the defendant Harding in the note for $500; but
that Jones was in fact the principal debtor, and that the money
lent on that note was received by him and appropriated to his own
use, although Harding's signature to it stood first in order; that
in September, 1817, Hardiug. for money borrowed, gave his note
to the Bank of Westminster for $1,000, with Abraham Jones, Alex-
ander Warfield, and Richard Beall, as his sureties; and to save War-
field harmless, * made to him the bill of sale of the 10th of
179 August, 1822, which was intended for that purpose only, and
not to secure or benefit Jones, in any manner, on account of his lia-
bility to Gittings on the note for $500: this defendant admits, that