
    ANDREW VANSYCKLE v. JOHN RORBACK ET AL.
    1. V., a minor, entered into partnership with N. and S., in Sussex county, and put in $1000 of capital. Before V. came of age the partnership was dissolved, V. receiving his $1000. After the dissolution, V. having removed into Hunterdon county, R. recovered a judgment against the members of the firm, including V., without V.’s knowledge, no process being served on him. R. transferred this judgment to A. Three years afterwards, A. brought an. action on the judgment and recovered a second judgment on it, without the knowledge of V., no process being served on him. A. procured the second judgment to be docketed in the Supreme Court, and caused an execution to be issued to the sheriff of Hunterdon, and to be levied on the property of V. in .that county. On bill filed by V., stating the foregoing facts, and charging combination and fraud, to subject him to the payment of the judgment, an injunction restraining proceedings on the execution was allowed.
    2. The defendants put in answers, and a motion was made to dissolve the injunction.
    3. The injunction was continued to the hearing.
    Oti the 8th of December, 1846, Andrew Vansyckle exhibited his bill, stating that in December, 1839, being then but 19 years old, he formed a partnership in the milling and iron foundry business, with one John Northrup, Jr., and Mahlon B. Staats, (one of the defendants.) in Sussex county, under the name and firm of Northrup, Staats & Co.; that Northrup and Staats then were, and had for sometime previous, been engaged in the business as partners; that at the time the complainant was taken into business with them, it was understood that they each had $2000 invested in the business, and that the complainant then put in $1000, upon the understanding and agreement that each was to receive profits in proportion to the amount of his capital invested; that the business of the firm was thus continued till May following, (1840,) when they opened a store, in connection with the mills and foundry, upon the same capital, and the same arrangement as to the division of the profits of the whole business; that the firm continued in .business until the 1st of October, 1840, when it was dissolved, by mutual consent, by the complainant's selling out his interest to Northrup, with the knowledge and consent of Staats, for $1000, being the amount of capital he put in; that the complainant had not received, and by the terms of the dissolution he was not to receive any part of the profits made by the firm, nor was he to be liable for any of the debts then outstanding against the firm, but the said Northrup, for the said sum of $1000, received all the complainant’s interest in said firm, and was to pay all the complainant’s liabilities on account thereof; the complainant losing his entire services and the interest on the said $1000, for the whole period of his continuance in the firm.
    That at the time of the dissolution the firm was amply able, out of its property, to discharge all its liabilities.
    That when he was applied to to become a partner, and when he became a partner, Northrup and Staats were both apprised that he was a minor.
    That during the continuance of the partnership, debts were eontracted by the firm, some of which have not been paid ofi by Northrup and Staats, and some of which have since been demanded of the complainant.
    That the complainant has lately been informed, that John Rorback pretends to have held a claim against said firm, for s debt contracted during the continuance of the said partnership, now amounting, with costs, to upwards of $400, and that Rorback recovered a judgment against said firm, on account of said claim, in the Circuit Court of Sussex, on the 15th of August. 1843, for $331.76, damages and costs, but that said judgment «vas recovered without the knowledge of the complainant, and without bis having any process served on him, or any notice or knowledge of ihe same whatever, or of the existence, at that time, of the said debt.
    That the complainant has been informed that some time after line recovery of the said judgment, at what time he cannot state, Rorback transferred it to Ebenezer Aber, whether with or without consideration the complainant is unable to state; and that, without any notice to the complainant, or demand of payment, Aber commenced a suit on said judgment, in the name of Rorback, in the Circuit Court of Sussex, against the complainant, with the said Staats, (Northrup having previously died,) and that on the 4th of August, 1846, he recovered judgment thereon, for $390.92 debt, and $34.37 costs.
    
      That no process in said suit was served on the complainant, and that he had no notice thereof till. some considerable time after the said judgment was entered, or any knowledge of the existence of the first-mentioned judgment.
    That shortly after the entry of said judgment in the Circuit Court of Sussex, Aber procured the same to be docketed in the Supreme Court, and immediately after caused an execution to be issued thereon, out of the Supreme Court, against the complainant, together with said Staats, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Hunderdon, returnable to October Term, 1846, by virtue of which execution all the property of the complainant has been levied on.
    That Northrup died in March, 1845, intestate, in Sussex, and that Azariah Davis is the administrator of his est-ate.
    That Staats still resides in Sussex, and has a large amount of property in .said county, and has no property, as the complainant believes, in Hunterdon; nor is there, as the complainant believes, any property in Hunterdon, belonging to the estate of Northrup, nor any property in Hunterdon on which to levy said execution, except the property of the complainant.
    That immediately after the dissolution the complainant removed from Sussex to Warren county, where he remained about six months, when he removed to Hunterdon, where he has ever since resided.
    That the first notice he had of the existence of-said debt, or of any pretence that such debt was due to Rorback or Aber, was the service of the said execution by the sheriff of Hunterdon, on the 26th of August, 1846, no notice of any of the said proceedings concerning the same having been given to him, and all knowledge thereof seeming to have been purposely withheld from him, in order that he might not have the benefit of a plea of infancy, to which they well knew he was entitled, or of any other defence; and thus, before he should be aware of said claim or any proceedings thereon, to heap judgment upon judgment on said claim, for the purpose of entangling and embarrassing the complainant, and the more effectually to prevent and disable him from setting up the legal and equitable defence which they well knew he might otherwise do.
    
      That Eorback is not an original creditor of the said late firm; but that lie received the note on which the said judgment was founded, by assignment, whether for a valuable consideration or not the complainant is ignorant, from one George H. Nelden, of Sussex, to whom, as the complainant is informed, it was given by said firm, for about §200 ; and that at the time he must have received said note, the complainant did not reside in Sussex, and had no property there to which Eorback could have looked for the satisfaction of the said claim; and that lie must then have looked to the other members of said late firm for the payment of the same, as must also have been the ease with Aber, at the time he received the transfer of said judgment from Eorback.
    That if said transfers were bona fide and for a valuable consideration, Eorback and Aber must have looked to the property of the other parties, in Sussex, and not to the complainant, who, with all his property, was in the county of Hunterdon.
    Thai Nelden was well acquainted with the complainant, and had been almost from the complainant’s infancy.
    That the complainant had been in the employ of Nelden, in ids store, for a considerable time, and had left there bat a short time previous to his entering into the said partnership with Norihrup & Staafcs; and tiiat Nelden well know, when he received the said note, that the complainant was a minor.
    That Eorback and Aber are both residents of Sussex, and resided in the neighborhood of the complainant, and were well acquainted with him, and had been for years, and, the complainant charges, well knew that he was a minor during the whole period of his continuance in the said partnership.
    That at the time Eorback obtained the said judgment against the said firm, there was abundance of property of said defendants in Sussex, out of which the amount thereof might have been made, upon which the execution might have been immediately levied, if said judgment was not then paid; and that, if it was not then paid, the complainant cannot conceive why the money was not made out of the property of the said firm at that time, or the complainant informed of said debt and requested to pay it, unless, as the complainant charges the truth to be, the whole matter was a contrivance between Eorback and Northrop and Staats, for unjust extortion from the complainant when no debt existed, and which he was not legally or equitably liable to pay. That this is not the first effort to obtain money from the complainant under these pretences.
    That on or about November 12th, 1844, one Aaron A. Ackerson obtained a judgment, in the Supreme Court, against the said late firm, on some assigned claim, for $656 damages and $37.08 costs, which was also obtained without the knowledge of the complainant, or the service of any process on him, or any notice to him. That execution of said judgment was issued against the complainant, and sent to the sheriff of Hunterdon and levied on the property of the complainant; and that the complainant paid the said execution, amounting to $731.90, out of his own estate, without having ever received any value for the same, which he paid rather than suffer an expensive litigation for the purpose of avoiding it; and, since Ackerson’s success, (whose proceeding, the complainant charges, was at the instance and by the aid and connivance of Staats,) the said Rorback and Aber, who, the complainant charges, are now proceeding with the assistance and for the benefit of Staats, are encouraged in the prosecution of the present attempt further to extort from the complainant.
    That he has no knowledge of the existence of any such debts, and that if they do exist, he is not liable for them.
    He charges that this mode of proceeding against him has been adopted for the purpose of defrauding him and obtaining judgments against him without his knowledge, that he might be deprived of any defence; and that it is done by the connivance and consent of Staats with the persons prosecuting; that otherwise there could be no object in their prosecuting thus secretly, and studiously seeming to withhold all knowledge thereof from the complainant, and multiplying judgment on judgment which had secrelty lain for years without the complainant’s knowledge, when the complainant and Staats were both in a situation to discharge the same at the time of the obtaining thereof; and when the complainant’s residence has been known and public ever since he left the county of Sussex.
    He says he is advised that the said judgment obtained by Rorback against him is not valid against him, as he could not legally be condemned unheard, though he were indebted on a joint contract, unless he had an opportunity to make his defence:
    That so much time had elapsed before he had any knowledge of the existence of the said suit or judgment by Rorback as to deprive him, at law, of taking any steps to get in his defence, or to set aside the said judgment.
    He charges that there is nothing due Aber or Rorback from the said late firm, and repeats the charge that the said proceedings arc by the contrivance and at the instance of Staats.
    The bill prays that the said judgment may be declared to be void as against the complainant, and proper to be relieved against; and that Rorback, Aber1, and Staats may be enjoined from further prosecuting the said judgments, or either of them, against the complainant; and that the sheriff of Hunterdon may be restrained from selling any property of the complainant by virtue of the said execution in favor of Rorback for the use of Aber; and that the plaintiff in said execution may be confined to his remedy against Staats and the estate of Northrup; and for further relief.
    Rorback, Aber, Staats and the administrators of Northrup are made defendants.
    The injunction prayed was allowed.
    Rorback, Aber, and Staats have put in separate answers.
    The answer of Rorback admits that, on the 15th of August, 1843, he recovered a judgment against Northrup, Staats, and the complainant, in the Sussex Circuit, for the amount stated in the bill; and says that this judgment was recovered for the amount then due upon two notes made by the said firm, both signed with the partnership name; one, dated April 1st, 1840, for $29, payable one day alter date, to Richard Gray or bearer; the other, (iated June 24th, 1840, for $233.62, payable one day after date, to George H. Nelden or bearer; that said suit was commenced by summons, returnable to January Term, 1843, of said court, which, he admits, was served by the sheriff of that county on Northrup and Staats, but not on the complainant, who, he is informed and believes, was not then residing in the said county ; and the said sheriff returned, on the said summons, that the complainant could not be found in his county; that he has no knowledge, except what he has derived from the bill, whether the complainant knew of the pendency of said suit or not; but he states, and charges the truth to be that, before the suit was commenced, he several times spoke to Northrup, Staats, and the complainant in relation to said notes, and informed them that he held the same, and requested them to pay the same; and that when the complainant was so spoken to by him, he made no objection against the said notes, nor against the justness or honesty of the debt due thereon to him; nor did he then, or at any other time, say or intimate to this .defendant, that he was a minor when the said notes were made.
    He says that, on the 18th of February, 1846, he assigned the said judgment to Ebenezer Aber, of Sussex, by. deed of assignment as follows — (giving the assignment literally.) It is in substance as follows: “ Whereas he, in the term of August, 1843, or of some other term in the Sussex Circuit, recovered a judgment against Northrup, Staats, and Andrew L. Vansyckle for $300.64 damages and $31.12 costs, more or less. Now this writing witnesseth that, for the consideration of the amount due thereon to him paid by Ebenezer Aber, he assigns to him, his executors, &c., the said judgment and all moneys due or to become due, and the benefit of all proceedings by execution or otherwise had or to he had or done thereon ; ” and he constitutes Aber his attorney irrevocable, in his name, to Aber’s use, to do, for the recovery and settling of the said damages and costs, everything that he could do; covenanting to do nothing whereby Aber will be defeated in the recovery of the moneys due on the said judgment, but on the express condition that all costs and expenses which may accrue by reason of anything done in the premises shall be paid by Aber, and that he, Rorbaek, shall not be liable for any part of the same.
    He says that, whatever money was paid for the said assignment, was paid to David Thompson, Esq., who, as his attorney, had brought the suit, and drew the assignment of the judgment; and this defendant does not know what amount was paid to him, but believes the whole amount of said judgment debt, interest, and costs, was received by said Thompson, inasmuch as he paid this defendant the whole amount of debt and interest due on said judgment, to wit, $300.64, the debt due this defendant, and also the interest thereon from the 15th of August, 1843, until it was paid to this defendant, and informed this defendant that he had received the costs.
    That he does not know of his own knowledge who paid to Thompson the money for the said assignment; that Thompson, as his attorney, had his entire confidence, and he left the whole management of the business to him, Thompson, and this defendant gave himself no further concern about it, except to receive what was doe to himself; but this defendant believes that he was informed by the said Thompson that he had received the money for the said assignment from the attorney of Ebenezer .fiber.
    That after he received the money due him as aforesaid, he gave himself.no further concern about the said judgment, or any subsequent proceedings thereon, but admits that he has been informed that a subsequent judgment was recovered thereon, in his name, for the use of said Aber, in the Sussex Circuit, against Staats and the complainant, (Norfchrup having previously died,) and was docketed in the Supreme Court, and an execution issued thereon to the sheriff of Hunterdon.
    Ho admits that Staats still resides in Sussex, but he has no knowledge of the amount of his property, nor whether there is property in Hunterdon belonging to Staats or the estate of Northrup.
    He says that the said notes were, on the 15th of September, 1810, and while the said partnership was still in existence, assigned to him by the said Tolden, and the payment thereof guaranteed by him to this defendant; that this defendant received them from him for his accommodation, and at his particular request, and advanced him the money thereon, upon the representation by him, and the belief of this defendant, that they were valid bona fide claims against the said firm.
    He denies that when he received the said notes from Nelden he knew that the complainant was a minor, and charges and insists that he never heard or knew that the complainant was a minor while he was a member of said firm, until long after he had so received the said notes; but at what time he heard of it he does not now recollect.
    He says that when he recovered his judgment, as aforesaid, in August, 1843, Northrup had considerable property in Sussex, but that the same was encumbered at that time for greatly more than its value by prior judgments and mortgages, and that, at the same time, Staats had considerable property in Sussex, which was also encumbered by judgments prior to that of this defendant, although this defendant believes that if he had pressed a sale of Staats’ property it would have satisfied his judgment ; but this defendant had no desire to press or crowd Staats, or to sacrifice his property at sheriff’s sale, and at his urgent request delayed enforcing the judgment, in order that he might have an opportunity the more easily to pay it.
    He denies that there was any contrivance whatever between him and Northrup and Staats, or either of them, for the purpose of extorting in any manner from the complainant, or oppressing him in any way, or compelling him to pay a debt that he was not bound to pay.
    That this defendant fully believed his debt was a just one, and justly due to him from all the said partners, and proceeded in the collecting thereof in the same manner that he would in any other case.
    He denies that, in executing the aforesaid assignment, nor in any of the proceedings connected with the judgment so assigned, he was actuated by any desire to extort money from the complainant, or acted with the assistance or for the benefit of the said Staats; his only desire was to collect the debt honestly due to himself; and insists that, for that purpose, he had a perfect right to assign the said judgment as he did; and that since the said assignment he has given himself no concern about the same, and had no part whatever in any of the subsequent proceedings, and is entirely ignorant at whose instance and by whose contrivance and for whose benefit the same have been had.
    He says he has no knowledge whether the said judgment has been paid or not since the said assignment; but he charges that at the time of the assignment there was due and unpaid upon said judgment the amount so paid as aforesaid to the said David Thompson for the said assignment.
    The answer of Aber states that, on the 18th of February, 1846, Rorback assigned the said judgment to him, by deed of assignment in the words and figures following (setting out assignment.)
    He says he was not present when the said assignment was executed nor delivered, nor when the money for the same was paid ; that he is advanced in years — being upwards of seventy — quite lame and infirm, and but seldom goes from home, and lives about seven or eight miles from Newton, where Rorback lives, and where the said business was transacted; that for some years past, M. Ryerson, Esq., of Newton, has acted as the attorney of this defendant, and transacted all his business requiring professional assistance, and that the money to pay Rorback for the said assignment was placed in the hands of said Ryerson, who acted in the matter at the request and as the attorney of this defendant, and was requested, by this defendant, to pay the money to Rorback, and procure an assignment from him of the said judgment to this defendant. And this defendant kept no memorandum of the amount of money so deposited with the said Ryerson, or of the amount paid by him, and cannot therefore state, from his own recollection, the exact amount paid, but was informed by the said Ryerson, and so charges the truth to be, that he paid to David Thompson, the attorney of Rorback, on the delivery of the .said assignment, the whole amount of the said judgment debt, interest, and costs.
    That before the execution of the said assignment, Staats called on this defendant, and represented that Rorback was pressing the payment of the said judgment, and would sell his property unless the amount of the judgment was soon paid to him; and further stated to this defendant that the said judgment grew out of the partnership debts of the said firm, and that, in justice, the complainant should pay the same, inasmuch as he (Staats) had already paid large sums of money on account of the debts of the said firm, and the estate of Northrup was insolvent, and that the complainant was bound to pay his proportion of the said firm debts, and requested the defendant, as his friend, to advance the amount of the said judgment to Rorback, and take an assignment thereof from him, and endeavor to collect the same out of the complainant; and this defendant, believing the representations of Staats, and believing that it was just and right, that the complainant should pay the said judgment, consented to to take an assignment thereof, and to collect the same, if possible, from the complainant, in order to relieve Staats from the payment of what this defendant believes it was unjust for him to be compelled1 to pay.
    That, after the said assignment was executed, he instructed his said attorney to go on and collect the said judgment, if possible, from the complainant, and that a suit was brought by his said attorney, upon the said judgment, in the said Circuit Court, in the name of Rorback, for the use of this defendant, against the complainant and Staats (Northrup being then dead), the summons in which was returnable to the term of May, 1846, of said court, and was returned served on Staats, and “not found” a^ to the complainant, in which suit judgment was recovered on the 4th of August, 1846, for $390.92 debt, and $24.07 costs.
    He admits, that before bringing the last-named suit, he gave no notice of the said claim to the complainant, nor demand payment thereof from him, and believes his said attorney did not, either.
    He says he has no knowledge, except from the bill, of the time when the complainant was first informed of the existence of either of the said judgments.
    He admits that the last judgment was, shortly after it was recovered, docketed in the Supreme Court, and that a ji.fa. was issued thereon to the sheriff of Hunterdon, returnable to October Term, 1846, of that court, and that the said sheriff was directed to levy upon all the property of the complainant, and sell it to satisfy the said judgment.
    He admits that Northrup died in the spring of 1845, intestate, and charges that he died largely insolvent, and that his estate will not pay five per cent, of his debts.
    • He admits that Staats still resides in Sussex, and owns considerable property there, but to what amount it is encumbered, he does not know; and he believes that there is no property in the county of Hunterdon belonging either to him or to the estate of Northrup.
    He denies that, he ever knew or heard that the complainant was a minor when the said notes were given, or that he had any defence to the judgment assigned to him, till since the subpoena and injunction in this suit were served upon him ; but insists and charges, that when the judgment was assigned he believed it was a regular and valid judgment, and binding on the complainant and Staats, and had no suspicion to the contrary; and he denies that he purposely withheld from the complainant any knowledge of the said proceedings, in order to prevent him from setting op ¿he plea of infancy, or any other defence to the said judgment.
    He says he is advised by his counsel, that in a suit on the first judgment, a plea, by the complainant, of infancy when the said notes 'were given would have been no defence, he being of full age when the said first judgment was recovered, as appears by his bill ; and that, as the first judgment was recovered before the adoption of the present constitution, and Northrup was dead when the same was assigned, he could not have had the said first judgment docketed ie the Supreme Court.
    He admits that in August, 1843, Staats had considerable property in Sussex; but says he has been informed and believes it was encumbered by prior judgments, but to what amount he does not know; and that he is informed and believes that Rorbaek delayed selling the property to Staats, to satisfy his said judgment, on account of the urgent solicitations of Staats, so as not to distress him, or cause his property to be sacrificed at sheriff’s sale) Rorbaek having no immediate want of money ; and this defendant knows of no other reason for the delay ; and from the information he has received, denies that there was any combination or contrivance between Rorbaek and Northrup and Staats, or either of them, for the purpose of unjustly extorting money from the complainant.
    He says that he never knew or heard, till since the filing of the complainant’s bill, of the recovery of the judgment by A. A. Ackerson, mentioned in the bill, or of any of the subsequent proceedings thereon; and that he does not know at whose instance and by whose aid or contrivance the said proceedings- were carried on. He denies that he has ever received any assistance from Staats in any of the aforesaid proceedings; and denies that he ever received from Staats any money whatever, either to procure the said assignment, or to pay the expenses of any of the proceedings which have been had on said judgment since the assignment; but he admits that the judgment so recovered in the name of Rorback for his use, and the subsequent proceedings therein, are so far for the benefit of Staats, as that if the complainant should be compelled to pay the whole judgment, Staats would be relieved from the payment of all but what his fair proportion would be, in a settlement between him and the complainant of the said partnership transactions and the debts growing thereout.
    He denies that the proceedings so as aforesaid had in his behalf have been had for the purpose of defrauding the complainant, or of depriving him of any defence he might have to the said judgment; but they have been had for the purpose already stated ; and he supposes and believes, that they have been had with the knowledge and consent of Staats.
    He says he does not know of his own knowledge how much was due on the judgment so assigned to him when it was assigned ; but from representations made to him, he believes and charges that the whole of it was then due and unpaid; and he expressly denies that any part of it has ever been paid to him by Staats or any other person, and insists that the whole amount thereof is due to him.
    The answer of Staats says that for some time prior to December, 1839, he and Northrup had been doing business in Lafayette, Sussex county, as partners in the milling and foundry business ; and that in December, 1839, the complainant was taken into the firm as a partner, and the same business was continued under the name and firm of Northrup, Staats & Co.
    He admits that the complainant invested $1000, and that each partner was to share in the profits in proportion to his share of capital invested.
    He admits that in May following the parties opened a store, in connection with their other business, which was carried on upon the same capital, and under the same arrangement, as to the division of the profits.
    
      He denies that he then knew that the complainant was a minor ; and whether Northrup knew it or not he does not know ; tnat, on the contrary, he supposed and believed that the complainant was then of age; and, to the best of his knowledge and belief, he never knew or heard of the complainant’s being a minor while a member of the firm, until long after the firm was dissolved.
    He says that, on or about October 1st, 1840, Northrup represented to him that the complainant was desirous to dissolve the partnership in such a manner that he, the complainant, might continue the store alone, and leave Northrup and this defendant to continue the rest of the business; but that this defendant utterly refused to do it, and insisted that he would leave the firm himself, and accordingly sold out his interest to the complainant and Northrup, and, by the agreement between them, this defendant was to receive back his capital, and $500 for his share of the profits, and the other two were to take the assets of the firm and pay all its debts; and he says that, in two days after he had made the said arrangement and sale, some arrangement was made between Northrup and the complainant, by which the complainant sold out his interest to Northrup; but what the particulars of the said sale and arrangement were he did not then and does not now know, not having been present at nor a party to it.
    He admits that, at the dissolution of the partnership, the partnership property was sufficient to pay the partnership debts.
    He says that, after he made the said sale, the other parties took into their custody and possession the books, papers and assets of the firm, and afterwards, on the 10th of February, 1841, the complainant gave to this defendant some accounts which had belonged to the firm, to collect, amounting to $172.57, to be applied, when collected, to what was so agreed to be paid to this defendant when he sold out, of which accounts he has received $108.36; and that this is all he received of the amount so due him on the dissolution of the firm.
    He says that, on or about May 11th, 1843, G. H. Coursen and E. B. Woodruff recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court, against the firm 'of Northrup, Staats & Co., for $444.75 damages an 1 costs, on which an execution was issued to the sheriff of Sussex, and that he paid off the said judgment, with interest, costs and execution fees, amounting, when paid, to $488; and that, on or about May 23d, 1843, one J. B. Marsh recovered a judgment, in the Common Pleas of Sussex, against the said firm, for $191, on which an execution was issued to the same sheriff, and that he paid off that judgment also, amounting, when paid, to $214.92; and that he has, also, since the dissolution, paid off a note given by the firm to Jos. Strader, for $55, dated August 24th, 1840; and has, also, since that time, paid other debts of the .said firm, the amounts of which he cannot now ascertain, not being able to find the receipts for the same.
    He admits that Rorback, in August, 1843, recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of Sussex, against the firm, for the amount stated in the bill; and says that, before that suit was commenced, Rorback spoke to him about the notes on which it was brought, and that, soon afterwards, and before the suit was brought, he, this defendant, spoke to the complainant on the subject, and that the complainant did not at that time say or intimate that he was a minor when the said notes were given, or that there was any defence to the notes, but seemed to know all about them and for what they were given, and replied that Rorback had better sue on them and collect the money from Nor-t'nrup as soon as he could.
    He says that, in January or February, 1846, he, this defendant, being pressed by Rorback for the payment of the said judgment, and not being able to obtain any further delay from him, applied to Aber and requested him to pay the amount of said iudgment to Rorback and take an assignment of it, and collect it, if he could, from the complainant; and stated to him that it grew out of the partnership debts of the said firm, and informed him that this defendant had paid a large amount of the said debts, when, according to the terms of the dissolution, he was not bound to pay any of the debts; but that the complainant and Northrup were bound to pay them; and thereupon Aber consented to take an assignment of the said judgment, and this defendant is informed and believes that the same was afterwards assigned to him by Rorback; but what he paid for it this defendant does not know; but he denies that he ever paid anything to Aber for the purpose of procuring the said assignment.
    
      He admits the second judgment, in the name of Eorback for the use of Aber, against the complainant and him, and says he has been informed and believes that the same has been docketed in the Supreme Court, and an execution issued thereon to the sheriff of Hunterdon.
    He admits that he still resides in Sussex, and has property there sufficient to pay all his debts, but has none in Hunterdon, and believes there is none there belonging to the estate of Northrup.
    He says he does not know when the complainant removed from Sussex, nor when he removed from there to Hunterdon; but he insist and charges that, before Eorback commenced the first suit, he, this defendant, informed the complainant of the existence of the debt for which it was brought.
    He says that soon after the recovery of the said first judgment, Northrup’s property was sold to pay prior judgments, and that Northrup died largely insolvent, and that the delay given by Eorback to this defendant was at his, this defendant’s, solicitation, to prevent a sacrifice of his property, and he denies that there was any collusion between him and Eorback or Northrup, for the purpose of extorting money from the complainant,,
    He admits that A. A. Ackerson, on the 12th of November, 1844, recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court, against him and the complainant and Northrup, for §693.40 damages and costs, which judgment was recovered on three notes given by the said firm, two of them to Paul Ackerson, and the other to the executors of his estate, the latter for grain sold to said firm, and the two former for money lent to the said firm, and that A. A. Ackerson was executor of the said P. Ackerson, deceased, in which suit the summons was served on him, and he believes, on Northrup, but not, as he believes, on the complainant, who then lived in Hunterdon, and that this defendant and Northrup, knowing the debt for which the suit was brought to bo just, suffered judgment to go by default, and he has heard and believes that the said judgment was paid by the complainant on an execution issued to the sheriff of Hunterdon, after the complainant had, without success, applied to the Supreme Court to open said judgment and allow him to plead infancy
    
      He admits that, before the said suit was brought, A. A. Ackerson called on him to pay the said notes, and that he told Ackerson he ought to collect the same from the complainant, for that he, this defendant, had paid a large amount of the debts of the said firm, which, as between him and his partners, he was not bound to pay, and the complainant had not, so far as this defendant knew, paid any of the said debts; but he denies that the mode of proceeding taken by Ackerson to collect the said notes was at his instance, or by his aid and contrivance, any further than that he told Ackerson, as has been already stated, that he ought to collect the said notes from the complainant, and when served with the summons in said suit, knowing the debt to be justly due Ackerson, allowed judgment to go by default, and he denies that he has rendered any assistance to Aber in the proceedings so as aforesaid adopted by him, but he admits that they are so far for his benefit that if Aber collects the amount of the said judgment from the complainant, he will not be compelled to pay it to Aber, and it may be the means of inducing the complainant to make a full and fair settlement of the said partnership affairs and debts with this defendant, which he is anxious to have done, and which he has frequently requested the complainant to do, without success.
    He denies that, so far as he knows, the proceedings had as aforesaid by Aber have been adopted for the purpose of defrauding the complainant, or of unjustly extorting money from him, or of obtaining judgment against him without his knowledge, that he might be deprived of any defence, and if any such motive existed on the part "of any person, he is ignorant of it; but he admits he knew that Aber intended to collect the said judgment from the complainant, if he could, but did not know what mode of proceeding he would adopt to do it.
    He says that the notes on which the judgment of Rorback was recovered are in Northrup’s writing, and signed with the partnership name, in Northrup’s writing, but he does not know for what they were given, or whether Northrup or the complainant had ever paid anything on said notesoron the judgments recovered thereon, and he has not paid anything himself on said notes, or on the judgments since recovered thereon, either to Rorback or Aber.
    
      He says he does not know, except by the bill, whether the complainant, at the time said notes were given, was a minor, but he insists that during the whole time of the partnership he supposed and believed that the complainant was over twenty-one, and that the people generally, at and in the vicinity of Lafayette, entertained the same belief; and he says he does not know whether or not the knowledge of said suits in the name of Rorback was purposely or by design withheld from the complainant, or whether or not the mode of prosecuting the complainant was adopted in order, as much as possible, to prevent the complainant from obtaining any knowledge of said proceedings until an execution should be served on him.
    It was shown, on the argument, that the complainant was born in March, 1820.
    
      S. G. Potts moved to dissolve the injunction.
    He cited 1 Green’s Ch. 163, 172; 8 Eng. Cond. Ch. Rep. 65; 2 Myln and Keen 423; 2 Harrison’s Rep. 270; 5 Taunton 856; 8 Ib. 35, 508; 7 Eng. C. L. Rep. 49; 2 Kent’s Com. 239.
    
      A. Wurtz and W. Halsted, contra.
    They cited 7 Cranch 326; 1 South. Rep. 93; Smith on Contracts 101, 206, 7; Stra. 1083; 5 Barn, and Ald. 147; 2 Maul, and Selw. 205; 2 Story’s Eq. §§ 895, 6; 5 Howard’s Rep. 43; 4 Taunton 468; 3 Ib. 307; 3 Esp. Rep. 76, 426.
   The Chancellor.

The injunction will be continued to the hearing.

Motion denied.  