?09 U. 8. Opluion o? the Court. now ?ible d? not Mva?&? it, nor ?ev? or ?rgM from ? oblation. Mr. W?m F. M?ly ?d Mr. ?. W?O B? for d?en?t M e=or: ?e ?n?ct did not ?n?mp? ?lvency. It w? a ?n?t of indem?ty ?d the le?l ?tmction of ?on ?th the ent? ?nt?t, fo?o?g the strict M?nt of ?th ?ti? ? it, 2 t?t M no event should the defen?t ? ?ui? ? ?y ?der i? ?nt?t mo? t? i? m?ble p?on of the ?t?l ?bi?ty of ?e p?t?. ?y on ?., [? 11, 11a; 2 Clement on ? ?., ?1, ?7; C?l? R. ?. �P. I?. Co. v. C?, 41 M?d, 59, 74, 75; B?, ?'r, v. A?n? I?. Co., ? N.Y. 1?; In ? I? C?'s A?, ? Ps. St. ?; C?u v. N? N?. I?. Co., 5 F?. C?. No. 2,4?; Bz ? N?, 18 F?. C?. No. 10,$?; I? ? R?l? I?. Co., ? F?. C?. No. 11,705. ?e co?tmction of th? m?g ?nt?, m sho? by su?ofiti? ei?, 2 ? ?Mo?ity ?th the ?neml p?cipl?, m?tMg not 0nly ? ?de?ty ?ntme?, but s? cont?. ?e f?men?l role of ?ction ? t?t the ?idemtion of the sit?tion of ?e p?i? when the ?nt?t w? ?e, i? ?bj?t mst?r md the p? of ?l ? de?mine the in?ntion of the p?ti? ?d the m?- ?g of the ?ms they u?, ?d t?t when th? sm ?r?n? they m?t prevail over the wo? of the stipu?tio?. Kau?- ? v. R?, ? L. R. A. 247, ?; C? Co. v. H?, 18 Ws?. 94; O'B? v. M?, 1? U.S. 287; I? Co. v. Du?, 8 ?. & R. 147; 1?. Co., 67 I?noM, ?62; ? I?. Co. v. ?lay? I?. Co., 9 Indlunu. ?; ? v. A? I?. Co., ? A. & E. ?c. (? ?.), 2?, 267 (2), ?0, ?H. ?. 3vs? ?, ?r ?klng ?e fo? s? mint, deBve? the opi?on of ?e ?. ?e o?y quition ?fom the ? ? m ? the ?etion
�
