26 rSDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �ail the property, in the third paragraph of the defendants' agreement, marked "Exhibit B," accompanying the bill. �We do not, however, see anything to justify restraining the defendant to the estent asked for. The propriety of the con- tract entered into between him and the corporation is not questioned. While such contracta are looked upon with sus- picion and disfavor by the court, they may be enforced when Bhown to have been made for the benefit of the corporation and to be just. OU Co. v. Manbery, 1 Otto, 687. The only complaint here is that Mr. Weed, on receiving the securities, "instead of paying the sum of $10,000 to the corporation, deducted therefrom certain sums, amounting to upwards of $2,000, under various pretences and allegations that he was entitled to commissions thereon, and other demands, whereby the corporation plaintiff did not receive the sum of $10,000, but only received a sum much less in amount; and these Bums the said Weed has since declined to pay or account therefor, and the complainants are informed and believe, and Bo aver, that the defendant has made various other gains and profits from the said transaction, the amount wher-eof is unknown to the complainants." �Whatever balance may be due the defendant, on account of the loan, the plaintiffs aver their -willingness to pay. It ap- pears, from the affidavits and exhibits, that the defendant retained $1,000 as commission for negotiating the loan, and $1,000 further in payment, as he says and as the corporation books show, of previous indebtedness to him. There is nothing before us, at this time, to justify a belief that he retained any more, or that he derived any other benefit from the trans- action; nor does it appear that he has received anything on the stock or bonds as dividends or interest. As the case stands, therefore, the defendant Weed appears to have a just and virtually undisputed claim against the corporation to the extent of $8,000, with the interest due thereon. �The statement in T. H. Green's affidavit that the defend- ant "took an additional $225," has not been overlooked, but the circumstances — that the abstract from the books, which this witness says "is an accurate statement relative to said ����
