
    The President, Directors, and Company of the Mechanics Bank vs. Levy and another.
    Where suspicious circumstances', gross fraud and collusion are charged in'» bill, a defendant will be held to a strict rule in answering. Not only hi$ motives, but his secret designs, his “ un-uttereet thoughts” must be exposed.
    
      March 12, 1832.
    This cotise Caine before the court on exceptions to a master's report allowing exceptions to answers for insufficiency. But there was only one exception taken to the answer of the' defendant, Levy, which contained any important point of practice.
    The bill Was filed by the complainants as judgment creditors of the defendant Solomon Levy, Senior. The debt originated in a large and, alleged, fraudulent overdrawing of account at the Mechanics’ Bank. Michael B. Wolfe, the other defendant, Was charged as a participator.- The complainants had caused a writ of fieri facias to be issued, which was returned nulla bona ; and they now sought a discovery and satisfaction out of the property and funds of either defendant.
    The fifth exception (allowedby the master) proceeded upon the ground of the defendantLevy’s not having answered, Whether he did or did not knowingly and premeditatedly overdraw his cash account. This charge he was called upon distinctly to answer.
   The Vice-Chancellor said:

Although this defendant has gone very much into detail instating the manner of his overdrawing, his reasons for it and the expectations of his making it good, yet I do not perceive he has met the charge in terms. In every case accompanied by such suspicious circumstances of fraud and collusion as are here exhibited, the party must be held to a strict rule in answering. .Not only his motives, but his secret designs—his “unuttered thoughts” must be reached, if possible, and exposed to view, in order that the fraud may be detected.

Mr. Henry W. Warner, for the complainants.

Mr. James Tallmadge and Mr. S. B. H. Judah, for the defendants.  