650 FEBEBA.L KEPOBTEB �(if better terma were offered) than could Le obtainod else- ■where, the complainant in this suit, as a stockholder in the Consolidated Virginia Mining Company, would be very likely to complain. The position of Flood, O'Brien, Mackey and Fair may be delicate, and their acts in it call for rigid scru- tiny, but there is nothing necessarily fraudulent or morally wrong in it. These acts of purchase, howcYer, are alleged to be at higher priees than others charged, and in pursuance of of a conspiracy to injure the purehaser, and to be in fact fraudulent. It is easy upon information and belief to charge conspiracy and fraud whereby enormous profits accrue to the alleged culpable parties ; but it is quite a different matter to establish them by satisfactory proofs. As now presented, no answer even having been filed, the matters rest upon naked allegations upon information and belief. It is impossible to anticipate what may turn out in the proofs. It may possi- bly turn out in some legal aspect of the case that defendants may be adjudged to account, whether rightfuUy or not, under circumstances disclosing no actual fraud, and no moral delin- quency at ail. In such a case a right to contribution would certainly arise in favor of the party who is called upon to pay more than his share, even though there is no partnership between them. A.t aU events, various results may be reaehed in different suits and different courts, under different views, different management, or different proofs; and under various possible aspects there might well be reasonable ground to elaim a right to contribution, and wherein a party might reasonably bring an action to enforce it, though he might fail in the action. In such a case the finality of the determi- nation, as to the party charged in the accounting who pays more than his share, does not depend upon the resuit of his action to compel a contribution, but upon whether he has reasonable ground in good faith to seek to compel a contri- bution, even though he may ultimately fail. For the purpose of this motion we cannot look forward and determine abso- lutely whether a right of contribution will ultimately exist or not. If it can be seen that, under any aspect of the case that may reasonably be presented, there may be reasonable ��� �
