STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 55

by way of mortgage or security, or to evade the claims of the
creditors of Henderson & Rogers, or of either of them; that Hen-
derson & Rogers, or either of them, were not indebted to him pre-
vious to the execution of those deeds; that he purchased those lots
absolutely, for his own use, and paid for them out of his own
moneys, that after he made the purchase, he improved one of
them, by erecting additional buildings thereon, at his own ex-
pense, for * which he never did charge Rogers; that after he
had obtained possession of the lots, he leased one of them
for a term of years; and the tenants, not Rogers, erected on it a
furnace which is of no use to him, Strike, and which the tenants
have a right to remove; that after he purchased, Rogers never re-
ceived the rents, nor paid the ground rents and taxes with his,
Strike's, consent; that be never promised Rogers to reconvey the
property to him on his repaying the purchase money: that he paid
the whole purchase money to Rogers, and never paid any part of
it to Jacob Small; that Rogers continued to occupy one of the lots
after the execution of the deeds; and on his failing to pay the
rent, he, Strike, distrained his property for the rent in arrear, and
thus obtained payment; and finally, that he was appointed trustee
under the insolvent laws for Rogers; but never, as such, received
any of his property.

Upon this answer the defendant, Strike, rested his defence; he
never asked or obtained leave to put in any other answer; nor did
he in fact ever put upon file any paper purporting to be a further
answer to this bill.

On the 30th of March, 1818, the defendant, John Rogers, filed
his answer, in which he states, that he entered into a partnership
with Robert Henderson about the year 1807 or 1808, which con-
tinued until the year 1811, when they failed; that he owes the
plaintiffs, after deducting a small payment made to them, nearly
six thousand dollars; that a few days after the failure of the firm
of Henderson & Rogers, he executed the deeds exhibited as parts
of the bill, to Strike, in order to secure the property therein men-
tioned for the benefit of the creditors of Henderson & Rogers,
and of his own creditors, so as to save it from those who were the
creditors of Henderson before the partnership, and also in trust
to preserve the surplus for himself and family; that this was the
understanding and agreement between him and Strike, who did
not pay, or agree to pay any part of the money which was the
nominal consideration of those deeds; that those deeds were en-
tirely voluntary, and were not intended to operate as a sale, or to
become such in any event, but were merely to remain as a trust;
for the property thus conveyed was worth at that time, much
more than the consideration money expressed in the deeds, and he
had been offered four thousand dollars for it by these plaintiffs;
that at the time he executed those deeds, neither he, nor the firm