510 HODGES v. MULLIKIN.

not materially bearing upon the question to be decided, the case
appears to be this:

The defendant Thomas Harwood had conveyed his property to
secure the payment of his debts to the extent, and in the manner
set forth by his two deeds of the 7th of April and 11th September
1810. After which the plaintiff Hodges filed his bill as mortgagee
to obtain the benefit of the deed of the 11th of September; setting
forth the deed of the 7th of April, and making this petitioner Mul-
likin, the surviving trustee under that deed, a defendant along with
Thomas Harwood. Which bill Harwood answered, acknowledging,
that he had executed those deeds, and that he had not then paid
the debts secured by either of them. On Mullikin's being served
with a subpoena to answer, he at once apprehended, that it had
relation to his situation as trustee under the deed of the 7th of
April; and, therefore, he called on T. Harwood for information
respecting the situation of the debts specified in that deed; and
was told, that they were very stale; that more than twelve years
had elapsed since they became due; and that he, Mullikin, could
have no claim under the trust deed. But Harwood did not
inform Mullikin, that suits had been brought, and judgments
obtained against himself, and the late Benjamin Harwood before
his death, by some of those creditors. Mullikin appears to have
had the credulity to be thus turned aside by T. Harwood from
making any further inquiry; and to have been induced to believe,
that he might consider himself as completely exonerated, and as
having no claim whatever upon the property mentioned in that
deed. After which Mullikin, accompanied by T. Harwood, called
on Nicholas Brewer, the plaintiff's solicitor, for the express purpose
of obtaining information respecting the suit, so that he might put
in his answer; and, from the conversation which then passed, it
appears, that the impression was'again renewed upon the mind of
Mullikin, that, as he had not been, so he could not be injured;
and therefore had no claim whatever upon the property mentioned
in the deed of trust. And accordingly he answered to that effect^
without then having before him, or ever having read either the bill,
or the answer of T. Harwood, as is evident from his, Mullikin's,
making a mistake in his answer, as to the names of the parties to
the bill. After thus answering, it appears, that Mullikin rested
satisfied, and had no further information respecting the matter until .
a short time before the filing of his petition in the month of August
last. On the second of May 1825 a decree was passed, grounded