l nom v. wmrnms. 29 — -
virtue of their long occupancy of the 20-acre tract above referred to. It
is also unquestionably true that, after the nrst decision of the supreme
court, there was an expectation among the citizens of Hot Springs that _
congress would pass some act for the disposition of that reservation, and
that occupation and improvement would be among the matters consid-
ered by congress in such disposition. Defendant, after receipt of title,
several times promised to carry out his contract. ·
· Upon these facts, I think it very clear that the claim of defendants
that this contract was without consideration, or that the consideration
was illegal, cannot be sustained. Obviously there was a settlement be-
~ tween the parties. The plaintiff William H. Gaines had some claims,
as between himself and defendant, to the ground, and probably to the
buildings, which were settled and adjusted by this deed and contract. r
He unquestionably had that prior occupancy which it was thought
might be of value in the future acquisition of title from the government,
and which in fact proved to be of value, the benefits of which the de-
fendant sought to acquire, and did acquire. The plaintiff was not sim-
ply contracting to furnish testimony to support a claim of the defendant
believed to be good, or believed to be fictitious; but he was contracting
with a view of preserving his own rights, and uniting the claims of him-
self and defendant in the one person, for the greater convenience, and in
the hopes of better success, in any proceeding which might be initiated.
The fact that he contracted to furnish the testimony, and did in fact
furnish it, works no estoppel as between himself and defendant. Hobbs
v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep.·870.
The contract which was made, was in no manner a violation of any
act of congress, nor did it contravene any public policy. It was a con-
tract between two parties who might possibly be contesting claimants
under some future act of congress for a settlement of their respective
claims. The case of Southerland v. Whittington, 46 Ark. 285, is very
much in the point, and the decision of that learned court is in accord
with the views I have expressed. See, also, Lamb v. Davenport, 18
Wall. 314.
A decree will be entered in favor of the plaintiifs as prayed for.
_ Hom ·v. Wmrmns.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. February 22, 1887.)
Cos·rs—Sr:oum·rY ron—Non-Rasrnmrcm. _
Where defendant moved for an order on the plaintiff to furnish security
for costs, because plain-tiif was not a resident of the state of New York, and
it appeared that plaintiff was set up in the proceedings as such resident, and
on all the papers nothindg appeared but that he was so set up properly and cor-
rectly, the motion was emed.
In Equity. l V