490 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

propriating the proceeds to their own uses, and in this manner
wasting and dissipating their resources; that they had sent be-
yond the reach of their creditors large quantities of goods;

that they had stated that they had made no transfer of their
stock of goods to any one, nor created any lien upon the same,
whereas in fact they had made two several bills of sale of their
whole stock of goods, the one to Sampson Cariss and the other
to their mother, Catharine S. Diffenderfer, to secure them in large
sums of money, alleged to have been loaned by them; and that
these liens were created whilst they were insolvent, and had no
expectation of extricating themselves from their difficulties ex-
cept by taking the benefit of the insolvent laws. That at the
time of calling together their creditors, the defendants (as
complainants were informed) admitted their insolvency; and
that Catharine S. Diffenderfer, at the period of the execution of
the bill of sale to her and for a long time previous, was in no
condition, from her own want of means, to lend money. That
defendants had been warranted for sums of money less than a
hundred dollars, and although admitting the justice of the
claims, they had interposed injurious and improper obstacles
to a recovery thereof, so that with the utmost diligence, judg-
ments could not be recovered against them before the month of
May, 1850, by which time their assets would be wholly wasted.
That since the execution of said bills of sale, the defend-
ants had held the property conveyed by them, or a large por-
tion thereof, and were selling the goods without accounting
with the grantees or to any of the creditors, for the proceeds
of sale.

The bill concluded with a prayer for the appointment of a
receiver, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from
proceeding with the business of the firm. The Chancellor
granted the injunction, but ordered the application for the. re-
ceiver to stand over for the coming in of -the answers.

The answer of the defendants, Diffenderfer, admitted that
they began business as grocers in the city of Baltimore, in
1846, and had since continued to prosecute the same, but de-
nied that they had ever falsely represented to the complainants