1. P. died intestate, leaving E., plaintiff's assignor and the defendants herein his heirs-at-law, and leaving certain real estate. E. was at the time insolvent and judgments to a large amount were outstanding against him; his interest in said real estate was sold on an execution against him and bid in by M. under an agreement between him and E. that the latter might, at any time thereafter, redeem by paying the sum bid with interest. Differences having arisen between E. and the other heirs, an agreement for a settlement was made in February, 1883, by which, among other things, it was agreed that E. and M. should take up and pay the judgments against E. Immediately after this E. confessed a judgment to defendant G. under an agreement that it was to be used only as a lien, and was not to be enforced in any event until May thereafter. G., however, in April, by virtue of his judgment, redeemed the interest of E. by paying the sheriff the amount of M.'s bid, and received a conveyance from the sheriff. an action for an accounting between the parties and partition, held, that G., by his redemption, did not obtain absolute title to E.'s interest, but held it simply in trust for him or his assigns, subject to the payment of the amount paid to redeem and of G.'s judgment, with interest on both; and this, although at the

In

time of the redemption the twelve months allowed for E., as the judgment-debtor, to redeem had expired; that he still had an interest and also a right to redeem under his agreement with M., which was valid; also, that the agreement between E. and G., in pursuance of which the judgment was confessed, was valid. Peck v. Peck. 64

2. Defendant T., under the agreement between the parties, received powers of attorney to manage and control the property; after these had been revoked on the part of E., but while T. was still, to some extent, in possession and was receiving the rents, issues and profits, he, with full knowledge of the circumstances above stated, purchased a judgment against E., the amount whereof was about $6,600, for $3,000. T. had promised E. that he would protect the latter's interest in the estate. Held, that T. was not entitled to be paid the full amount of the judgment, but simply the amount paid by him with interest; that notwithstanding the revocation of the power of attorney, his relations with E. continued to be fiduciary in their nature. Id.

3. At the time of the decease of P. there was a mortgage upon the premises, which T. purchased for $10,000 and took an assignment to himself, the principal and interest of which amounted to over $16,000. It did not appear that at the time of the purchase there was any intention on the part of the mortgagee to foreclose, or that there was any immediate and pressing necessity to take care of the mortgage. Held, that T. was not entitled to hold the mortgage for its face, but only for the amount paid therefor, with interest, and he had simply the right to require of his co-tenants to contribute their share of this amount;