McKIM v. THOMPSON. 153

trustees for the benefit of his creditors, to whom he conveyed all
his property accordingly.

Upon these circumstances, the trustees, McKim and Emory,
together with The British Copper Company, and others, holders
of the bills drawn by Heyland, on the 22d of September, 1812,
instituted this suit against Hugh Thompson and John Bell, the
surviving partner in this country of William & John Bell & Co.
They alleged, that the sums of money received by Thompson
from Heyland, as shewn by their exhibit E, amounted to the sum
of .£8889 5s. 4d. sterling; and prayed, that Thompson might be
decreed to pay over to the trustees, McKim and Emory, for the
benefit of the bill holders, and others, the creditors of Heyland,
the amount received by him : and for general relief, &c.

On the 27th February, 1813, the defendant, Hugh Thompson,
filed his answer, in which he admits, that the bills drawn by
Heyland, were accepted as stated; that the agreement of the 20th
November, 1810, and that of the 8th January, 1811, were made
and executed as stated. And he then answers in these words:—
" This defendant avers, that the said agreement, bearing date the
8th January, 1811, was executed at the instance of Heyland; but
this defendant denies that it was the intention of the said agree-
ment, or the understanding of the parties, or of the counsel
employed by them to reduce it into form, that Heyland should be
entitled to indemnity, unless his payments to defendant should
exceed the debt which should be actually due from Heyland to the
house of Bell & Co. The true purpose of the agreement being,
that as Heyland did not exactly know the amount which Bell & Co.
had paid, or might pay for him, he should be secure of a restoration
from this defendant of the surplus of his payments, if any such
there should be; and the language of the agreement does, as this
defendant apprehends, indicate, with sufficient explicitness, that
object, which only this defendant could have had any rational
motive for acceding to, or the said .Heyland could, with any appear-
ance of justice or propriety, propose to him."

And this defendant further answered, in these words: " That he
does know Marcus Heyland to be insolvent, and a bankrupt; that
he has reason to believe, that the affairs of the house of William
& John Bell & Co. have been, and continue to be, somewhat
deranged. But he is well informed, that the high and improving
prices of American produce in England, in consequence of the war

20