130 HIGH COURT OP CHANCERY.

Such must certainly be the case with regard to all the ques-
tions settled upon the former appeal.

The facts alleged, then, which constitute the complainant's
equity, are, 1st, That after the judgments were rendered against
Barnes and the two Masons, they executed a conveyance to the
trustees, Yost and Price, on the 11th of October, 1839, of all their
real estate in Washington county, and a large personal estate,
in trust, to pay their debts according to their legal priority—the
said trustees being the attorneys of the judgment creditors.
2d, That the existence of said deed was made known to said
judgment creditors shortly after its execution, and that they
acquiesced in the assumption by the trustees of control over the
property conveyed, and suspended all proceedings upon their
judgments. 3d, That by acts indicative of their intention to
look for payment of their claims to the proceeds of sales which
should be made by the trustees, they gave credit to them, and
enabled them to make more advantageous sales for the cred-
itors than could otherwise be effected. 4th, That the com-
plainant was persuaded to make payment, from a belief, well
founded in the conduct of the creditors, that they would look
to the trustees, and only to the trustees, for payment of their
claims out of the proceeds of the sales to be made by them.
The court, after thus stating the equity of the bill, proceed to
show what sort of a case the plaintiff must prove, to entitle him
to relief; and in doing so, say that, "if the judgment creditors
assented to the deed of trust, and by their conduct induced the
complainant, and others, to become the purchasers of the land
bound by their judgments, and to believe that they would look to
the trustees for the payment of their claims, and not to the liens
created by their judgments, that such conduct would furnish a
valid equitable defence. To allow the judgment creditors, after
such a course of conduct to enforce their judgments against the
purchasers, would be to permit them to perpetrate a fraud upon
the purchasers. The obvious consequence of such a procedure
on the part of the judgment creditors, would be to lull the pur-
chasers into a false security, and to induce them to believe that
a title would follow the payment of the purchase money. Upon