WHITE VS. WHITE. 57

statute; since it is clearly shown that the defendant was in Balti-
more more than three years before the present bill was filed—that
his being there must have been, and was in point of fact, known
to the complainants, and that they had full and ample oppor-
tunity, if they had thought fit, to proceed against him- then.
Hy'singer vs. Baltzell, 3 G. & J., 158.

But apart from these objections, I cannot bring my mind to the
conclusion, that the complainants have any claim against this
defendant, John C. White, upon the merits.

The evidence, I think, clearly shows that he is not only en-
tirely blameless in this transaction, but that he has been guilty
of no laches which could, upon any just principle, render him
responsible, for the proceeds of this stock to these parties. There
is nothing, as it appears to me, in the evidence, which brings
home to him a knowledge that these shares of stock stood in
the name of Joseph White in trust for the complainants, nor
that he or they had any interest therein; and in his answer,
being in this particular directly responsive to the bill, which al-
leges notice of the trust, any such trust is expressly denied. It
is stated in the answer of this defendant, that in the months of
January and February, 1840, a large amount of the shares of
the stock of this banking company were sold by him, as a bro-
ker, for his father, Campbell P. White, and his uncle, Robert
White, both of New York—that he knew them, and them only,
in these transactions, and accounted with and paid them the
money as his principals; and the proof of Campbell P. White,
under the New York commission, is in precise accordance with
this statement in the answer.

There can be no sort of doubt, therefore, that (his defendant,
John C. White, has paid to the person by whom he was em-
ployed, the proceeds of the sales of this stock; and it also ap-
pears from the letters of Joseph White, the father of the com-
plainants, by whom the stock was held in trust, addressed to
the said Campbell P. White, that he knew that the money had
been received by the latter. The attempt, then, is, five years
after the date of the transaction, to compel this defendant to
pay the money a second time. That he has already paid it is