OHAPMAN V. SUCCESSION 0? IflIiSOa. ^05 �Chapman ». Succession op Wilson. �{Circuit Court, D. Louisiana. January, 1881.) �L BiLii TO 8bt Abidb Settlbment— Fraxtd— Failuke of Considera- TioK — Lachks. — In May, 1867, Bradley, Wilso'n & Co., being largely indebted to Chapman, and having become financially embarrassed, transferred to Walker, agent of Chapman, by way of compromise, and in f ull settlement of their debt, i'nier alia, the notes of one l'rew- Itt, an insolvent, secured by a marriage settlement made between Prewitt and wife before matriage. The notes were indorsed " with- 6ut recourse except as to the consideration," and Chapman executed a release discharging the firm from ail liability upon their indebted- ness. This compromifle was promoted and advised by Walker, an attorney, and mutual friend of both parties, who had' di-awn up the marriage settlement, and was himself also secured thereby on a debt due him from Prewitt. At that time s suit was pending to set aside the marriage settlement as fraudulent and void as against the unse- cured creditors of Prewitt, to which suit Bradley, Wilson & Co., Walker, and others were parties defendant. �In 1874 a decree was'rendered in this suit, sustaining the marriage settlement and dismissing the bill. In December, 1870, another suit was begun for the same purpose in a United States circuit court by Prewitt's assignee in bankruptcy, and that court, in April, 1878, made a decree declaring the marriage settlement fraudulent and void. Both decrees were appealed, the former to the supreme court of the State, the latter to the supreme court of the United States, and these appeals are both still pending. �Held, upon the bill flled by Chapman, October 16, 1879, to set aside the settlement of May, 1867, upon the groûnd of fraud, mistake, and want of consideration, that the complainant, by the lapse of twelve and a half years, had allowed his claim to become stale, and had waived his right to assert the same. �2. LA.CHSS.— H dd, further, that the laches of the complainant were not excused by the fact that he elaimed not to have discovered the alleged fraud untii December, 1870 ; and by the further fact that the question of the validity of the marriage settlement was pending, during the whole pefiod, in both the state and circuit courts. �8. Fraud— Insitfficient EvroEUCE.— fl«Zd, further, that the mere cir- cumstance that the flrm, by compromise with their creditors, and by a favorable turn in the value bf their property, ultimately succeeded in saving a considerable surplus, would not furnish sufBcient ground for setting aside the settlement of May, 1867. �4. Fbaijdxileiit Concealment— Insufpicibnt Evidence. — RM, further, that the mere fact that Chapman was not aware of the existence of the suit in the state court to set aside the marriage settlement, and v.5,no.4— 20 ����
