INDEX. 565

EQUITY AND EQUITABLE DEFENCE— Continued.

1. That if the judgment creditors assented to the deed of trust, and
by their conduct induced the complainant, and others, to become
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 their judgment liens, such conduct would furnish a
valid equitable defence.

2. 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 latter. Upon such a
state of facts, the ,'purchasers would not be bound to see to the
application of the purchase money.

3. A defence, founded upon such circumstances, can only be ren-
dered available in a court of equity on the ground of fraud. Dowb
vs. Bames, 127.
EVIDENCE.

1. It is an established rule of evidence in this state, that the answer of one
defendant in chancery, is not evidence against the other defendants.
Glenn vs. Baker, 73.

2. The answer of one defendant, when responsive to the bill, is evidence
against the plaintiff m favor of the other defendants. Ib.

3. Where the rights of the insolvent are identically the same, whether the
decision passes one way or the other, he would be a competent witness
for either party. Ib..

'' 4. Though evidence dehvrs a will, will not be admitted to prove or disprove
the intention of a testator to raise a case of election, there can be no
valid objection to such evidence to show the state and circumstances
of the property. Wafers vs. Howard, 112.

5. A party who has assigned a judgment without recourse, except as to
his right to assign and transfer the same, is a competent witness for
the assignee in a suit to enforce the judgment, the warranty extend-
ing only to the right to make the assignment. Dovh vs. Barnes, 128,

6. As evidence of payment of a legacy due to a ward, the defendants relied
upon a memorandum in the hand-writing of C., the husband, of the
ward, by which he charged himself with "amount of B's draft (500,"
(B. being the guardian.) The draft was not produced, and there was
no proof of its payment, or on what account it was drawn. They fur-
ther claimed a credit of ^1500, being the amount of a check of B. on
the Bank of Baltimore, payable to C., or bearer, which was paid by the
bank, but to whom the money was paid did not appear. HELD—
That this evidence of payment, was wholly inconclusive and unsat-
isfactory, and that it would be a departure from the rules estab-
lished for the ascertainment of truth to give it the effect for which
the defendants insist. Ooilt vs. Homes Sf Pergwson, 152.

7. Courts [of justice are not at liberty to indulge in wild, irrational
conjectures, or licentious speculations, but must act upon fixed and
settled rules. And it is far better that individuals should occasionally
suffer, than that principles, which time and experience have shown

VOL. I——18