Opinion of the Court.

Arkansas;" and that bill, upon a hearing, was dismissed for want of equity.

The decree dismissing the bill of review for want of equity was a conclusive adjudication upon the merits. The point that the plaintiff in review, being an administrator appointed in Illinois only, could not be sued in Arkansas, was apparent upon the face of the record of the decree sought to be reviewed, was stated in the bill of review, was necessarily involved in the decree dismissing that bill, and was thereby conclusively adjudged against the plaintiff in review, the original defendant. In filing the bill to have the former decree set aside upon the ground that it should not have been rendered against him as an Illinois administrator, he became himself the actor, and submitted that question to a court of competent jurisdiction, and its decision upon that question, whether favorable or adverse to him, was equally conclusive of the matter adjudged. Lyon v. Perin & Gaff Co., 125 U. S. 698; Whiting v. Bank of United States, 13 Pet. 6; Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Pet. 686; Jewsbury v. Mummery, L. R. 8 C. P. 56.

Whatever doubt may have existed as to the validity of the former decree, as binding the assets of the deceased in the hands of the administrator, before the decree upon the bill of review, is removed by the latter decree; and, by the effect of this decree, the former decree must be treated, for the purposes of this case, as a judgment rendered by a Federal court of competent jurisdiction, and binding the assets of his intestate in his hands, just as if it had been rendered in a Federal court held in the State of Illinois.

This being so, the plaintiffs' claim was not barred by the omission to file it within two years in the county court of Lake County, according to the statutes of Illinois, or by the settlement of the estate and the discharge of the administrator in that court. Illinois Rev. Stat. 1874, c. 3, §§ 60, 70, 111. Such would seem to be the result of the decisions in Illinois. Darling v. McDonald, 101 Illinois, 370; Diversey v. Johnson, 93 Illinois, 547. But, however that may be, the general equity jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States to administer, as between citizens of different States, the

Syllabus.

assets of a deceased person within its jurisdiction cannot be defeated or impaired by laws of a State undertaking to give exclusive jurisdiction to its own courts. Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 90; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425. In Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U. S. 449, cited by the appellant, the state statute in question was a mere statute of limitations, clearly applicable to suits in the Circuit Court of the United States, held within the State. Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 130 U. S. 693, 696.

The eighth question certified must therefore be answered in the affirmative, and this renders it unnecessary to give a definite answer to any of the other questions.

Decree affirmed.

HAMMOND v. HOPKINS.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 62. Argued November 11, 12, 1891. — Decided February 29, 1892.

A court of equity will not aid a party whose application is destitute of conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence, but will discourage stale demands, for the peace of society, by refusing to interfere where there has been gross laches in prosecuting rights, or where long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights has occurred; and in these respects each case must be governed by its own circumstances.

A purchase by a trustee of trust property, for his own benefit, is not absolutely void, but voidable; and it may be confirmed by the parties interested, either directly, or by long acquiescence, or by the absence of an election to avoid the conveyance within a reasonable time after the facts come to the knowledge of the cestui que trust.

Two partners owned real estate in common, some of which was used in the partnership business. One died making the other by his will a trustee for the testator's children, with power of sale of all the real estate, and directing that the business be carried on. After carrying on the business for some time the trustee sold the real estate, by auction, and bought portions of it in through a third person, and accounted for the half of the net proceeds. This transaction was open, and was known to all the cestuis que trustent, and was objected to by none of them. Held That there was nothing in all this to indicate fraud.

Statement of the Case.

In all cases where actual fraud is not made out, but the imputation rests upon conjecture, where the seal of death has closed the lips of those whose character is involved, and lapse of time has impaired the recollection of transactions and obscured their details, the welfare of society demands the rigid enforcement of the rule of diligence.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This was a bill filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, April 8, 1884, by William B. Hopkins; Anna B. Hopkins, by her next friend William B. Hopkins; Sarah E. Hopkins, by her next friend Elizabeth A. Early; Elizabeth A. Early; Mary V. Wailes; Alice C. Hall; and Ida M. Stone; against Bertha Hopkins; Bertha Hopkins, administratrix of John S. Hopkins; Esther E. Hopkins; Elizabeth B. Luttrell; Ira W. Hopkins; Mary E. Hopkins; Bettie Davenport; Samuel C. Raub, trustee for Bettie Davenport; Samuel C. Raub, executor of George N. Hopkins; L. Freddie Hopkins, administratrix; Thomas J. Luttrell, administrator of George W. Hopkins; and Thomas J. Luttrell, executor of Cornelius Hopkins; alleging that prior to and on the 23d day of November, in the. year 1858, John Hopkins and George W. Hopkins were seized and possessed in fee simple, each of an undivided moiety, as tenants in common, of squares numbered ninety-four (94), ninety-five (95), ninety-six (96), one hundred and ten (110), and one hundred and eleven (111), in the city of Washington, as laid down on the public plats of the city; and that John Hopkins, on that day, executed his last will and testament, a copy of which was annexed. That John Hopkins died November 27, 1858, leaving his children and heirs-at-law, Isaac II. Hopkins; Elizabeth A. Early, born Hopkins; George Washington Hopkins; William M. S. Hopkins; Emeline V. Lilburn, born Hopkins; Mary V. Wailes, born Hopkins; Alice C. Hall, born Hopkins; John S. Hopkins, and Levin Hopkins. That Isaac H. and Levin Hopkins have since died intestate and without issue; that George Washington IIopkins died in the month of July, 1870, leaving as his only children and heirs-at-law, William B. Hopkins, then eleven years of age, and Anna B. Hopkins, then two years of age; that the said Emeline V. Lilburn conveyed

VOL. CXLIII-15

Statement of the Case.

on April 7, 1884, all her right and title absolutely and unconditionally in said estate to her daughter Ida M. Stone; and that John S. Hopkins died May 7, 1883, leaving as his only child and heir-at-law the defendant Bertha Hopkins.

That the said George W. and John S. Hopkins accepted the said trust, entered into possession of said premises, carried on the business of brick making for several years, collected the rents and profits of said estate, and, as is charged upon information and belief, sold at various times prior to May 1, 1864, portions of said property for which they received certain moneys, the particulars of which complainants propose to prove before the auditor.

It was then charged that it had lately come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that "at this period" the trustees meditated a fraudulent scheme to obtain the entire estate in their own right, "freed and discharged of the trusts under which they held it," and that, "in pursuance of this scheme of fraud," John S. Hopkins persuaded his brother William M. S. to convey to him his share in his father's estate, (William being of dissipated habits and mentally enfeebled by alcoholic excesses,) by deed dated June 20, 1860, and recorded July 7, 1860, and under his command and direction to sign the name of his wife, Sarah E. Hopkins, thereto; and by means of fraud obtained the certificate of acknowledgment to said deed of two justices of the peace. Ignorance of these facts was averred, the circumstances of their discovery to be thereafter stated at length.

It was further stated that William M. S. Hopkins on January 28, 1864, conveyed all his right, title and interest in his father's estate to one Christopher Ingle, in trust for the benefit of his wife Sarah E. Hopkins, which fact had lately come to the knowledge of the complainants under circumstances that would thereinafter be set forth at length.

The bill then alleged that in pursuance of the fraudulent scheme before mentioned the trustees advertised the property for sale at public auction on May 10, 1864, a copy of which advertisement was annexed. That they fraudulently procured James Chapman to attend the sale and bid on their behalf as individuals, and that Chapman became the purchaser for them.

Statement of the Case.

of squares 95, 96 and 111; of lot 1, square 94; and lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 38 and 39, in square 110; and that on May 20, 1864, George W. and John S. Hopkins conveyed the property to Chapman for the consideration of one dollar, and Chapman reconveyed, under the same date, square 111 to George W. Hopkins, as an individual, for the alleged consideration of $9093.42, and the other property to George W. and John S. Hopkins, as individuals, for the alleged consideration of $10,842. 24, all the conveyances being recorded November 16, 1864. Plaintiffs averred that the purchases by Chapman were for the benefit of the trustees as individuals without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs.

It was further charged that "the said trustees, in furtherance of their said fraudulent scheme to possess themselves individually of the said trust estate and brick business, and in order to give a semblance of right to their said fraudulent conduct, did, after a lapse of nearly seven years from the death of their testator, file in the orphans' court of said district'a first and final account' of what purported to be an 'account of the personal estate of John Hopkins, deceased, by George W. and John S. Hopkins, executors,' alleged to consist of the personal estate of said decedent, of the profits made out of the brick business, and the value of the deceased's interest in the firm of John and George W. Hopkins, showing that there was for distribution the sum of $22,131.46, and these plaintiffs have caused diligent search to be made among the records of said orphans' court for the vouchers and papers on which said account was based, but have not been able to find the same, so as to discover in what manner the item of $14,952.66, the proceeds of sale of the half interest, was made up, a certified copy of which account is herewith filed and prayed to be read as a part of this bill; and the said trustees, without explaining the nature of their trust or their fraudulent conduct in regard to said sales, and without actual notice to or any personal knowledge of any of these plaintiffs, did obtain an order of said court directing a distribution of the sum of $2667.60 to each of the children then living of said John Hopkins as heirs-atlaw." The payment of the distributive shares under the order,