
    NEVITT v. G. AND M. McAROY.
    Where the answer in chancery responds to the allegation in the bill it is to be taken as true unless contradicted, by more than oath against oath.
    A husband who has squandered away the disposable means of his wife will have no relief in chancery, to take from the wife a note given for her money, on which she raises money for her maintenance, and to collect it under the pretence of its being lost.
    The possession of a wife, is, in general, the possession of a husband.
    Chancery. The bill states that the defendants gave their note to the complainant for $>224, which it is alleged is lost, and the greater part of the amount due. That the defendant obtained possession of the note by fraud, and now pretends it is paid, and that he has supplied the wife of the complainant and her children with necessaries, which have been fraudulently endorsed on the note, because in fact no such supplies were furnished, and prays answer, proof of any supplies furnished, and payment of the note.
    The answers admit the giving of the note, deny that the defendants have it in possession, and claim to have furnished supplies to the complainant’s wife and children, the amount of which she has endorsed who still holds the note, and deny all fraud. There is no replication.
    The proof is, that since the marriage of the complainant, he has squandered all his wife’s estate, having received between two and three thousand dollars of her money, and left her and the family destitute of the means of support and reduced to want. The note in question was given for the money of the wife. She and her child have been supported for three or four years by one Ear hart,, and McAroy had paid rent for the house she occupied.
    P. Ross and Dunlevy, for the complainant.
    
      T. Corwin, contra.
   By the Court.

The answers are responsive to the allegations in the bill, and, uncontradicted must be taken as true. The contradictory evidence to destroy their effect must more than balance the oaths of the defendants. The evidence, instead of contradicting corroborates them. The case does not challenge much favor in a court of equity. The complainant, who has squandered away all the disposable means of his wife, and left her destitute for years, now asks to have a small sum that is due on,a note in her possession given for her money, and on which she occasionally supplies herself and child with necessaries, ordered to be paid over to him under the pretence that the note is lost! But why come into chancery? If he rely upon the mere loss of the note, he may recover in a court of law. If his wife has the note, her possession is in legal contemplation his. But, at any rate his hands are too foul to receive any aid in this Court. The bill must be dismissed at the complainant’s costs, saving to him what right he may have at law.  