' ARNOLD V. HYMEB. 581 �paying Eogers the purchase money. It was satisfactorily sho-wn that, without the payment of Eogers by complkinant, John B. Hymer could never have obtaiped the title, because of his inability to raise the amount due Eogers; so that complainant may well bave thought that bis title came to him, which, in f aot, it did, by virtue of the payment made to Eogers. It is also shown in evidence that investments were afterwàrds made by John B. Hymer in land, the deed for vrhich was taken to the mother of these defendants, and by ber death tbey have fallen heirs to that land, to the exclusion of the rest of the children of John B. Hymer; thus .raising a strong presumption that his wife succeeded in accomplish- ing her desires, made known at the time of the making of the deed by her and her hushand to Arnold, which the wife did not sign until the husband had promised he would invest the balance of the purchase money for her and her children's benefit. How inequitable it would be to thus obtain the benefit of part of the purchase money paid by complainant, and then turn aroand and take the land for which it had been paid. But this is not ail. Here are heirs, whose ances- tors warranted the title which they seek to defeat, thereby, if Buccessful, causing a breach of warranty and creating a lia- bility. A court administering equity often looks beyond the question which must determine the issues in hand, and though matter may not be sufficient to base a decree upon, yet they tend to remove doubts as to the conclusions arrived at, The decree will be that the title to the land in controversy vests in complainant; that the defendants be perpetually enjoined from prosecuting their suit, in ejectment; and that complain- ant pay ail costs. ����
