CHASEv. MANHARDT. 349

Hence it is very evident, that neither the original, nor a copy of
his contract of the 26th March, 1812, could have been filed with
his answers; and, that he certainly did not in those answers state,
as a ground of defence, that he could not then be considered as tha
debtor of Bryden, according to the terms of that contract; because
it had not then been performed by Bryden on his part. -

The continuance at March, 1817, " to await the decision in a
cause in chancery," alluded to a suit which had been instituted
by Manhardt against Bryden and others, and is still depending in
this court, to obtain an injunction to prevent Chase from paying or
giving his notes to Bryden for the sum of $6000, which had been
attached in his hands; and also to obtain certain disclosures in aid
of the attachment suit. But it does not appear, nor is it alleged,
that it was founded on any special understanding or agreement
with this complainant, or that he was, in any respect, misled by
any confidence he placed in that entry as a continuing and binding
agreement. On the contrary, he says, " that he relied upon the
said attachment's being continued as the said injunction was then
depending." But he does not allege, nor does it in any way appear,
that the continuance of the injunction involved, or embarrassed, of
withheld from him any defence he might have made as garnishee
in the attachment case, or that in consequence thereof he did not
make any defence which he otherwise would have made. The fact
is, that the injunction from this court, and the attachment at law,
both operated upon Chase, the garnishee, in precisely the same
way; the object of both was to prevent him from paying what he
owed, to Bryden himself, and to have it paid into other hands.
There is nothing which shows, that Qhase was taken by surprise
by any movement in either of those cases, or by proceeding in
either pending the other.

Much has been said about the fraudulent and collusive conduct
of Manhardt) Bryden, and Kyd. But it is not in any manner shewn
how any of their alleged frauds or misrepresentations could or did
affect the complainant Chase. It is admitted, that Bryden was
indebted to Manhardt; and, that Chase was indebted to Bryden.
Now, as the conduqt of those persons did not in any way affect
Chase, or charge him with more than he really owed Bryden, or
enable Manhardt to recover more than he might lawfully claim of
Chase as the creditor of Bryden,—it is exceedingly difficult to
Conceive how there could exist any fraud of which Chase could