ROGERS V · .MARSHALIJ
1878. But to this suggestion there are several answers. Nothing of the kind is alleged in the bill, and the evidence was not directed to the inquiry whether the defendant was thus in default, and the facts in this regard are not sufficiently clear. But if in default, it is not shown that the bankrupt or his estate has sustained any injury thereby; and, finally, the appropriate remedy for such injury is an action at law. Upon the whole I have reached the conclusion that the substantial justice of the case is with the defendant, and that the plaintiff has failed to establish any ground for equitable relief. This court, sit· ting in bankruptcy, will, of course, see to it that the defendant makes no inequitable use of his cumulative securities. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the plaintiff's bill, with costs" to be paid out of the bankrupt's
ROGERS 'U. MARSHALL
(Circuit Court, D. Oolorado.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN LITIGATION;
An attorney at law cannot purchase from his client the SUbject-matter of litigation in which he is employed and acting, if, I\S a part of his negotiations for the purchase, he advises his client as to the probable outcome of the litigation, and its effect upon the value of the property he is seeking to purchase.
PLEADING--ALLEGATIONS-To BE PROVED.
In cases where the answer neither admits nor denies some of the material allegations of the bill, they must be proved upon the final
REHEARING-ApPLICATION, WHEN DENIED.
An application for a rehearing, upon the ground of neWly-discovered evidence, where the affidavits filed in support of the,motion show that the newlydiscovered evidence is merely cumulative, will be denied.
Luther S. Dixon and W. B. Felker, for complainant. John F. Dillon, J. B. Geo. W. Kretzinger, and N. A. Oowdrey, for respondents. MCCRARY, C. J. This important case has been exhaustively reo argued by eminent counsel upon a petition for rehearing, based (1) upon the record as it stood at the former hearing, and (2) upon alleged newly-discovered evidence. The questions raised, some of them now for the first time, have been carefully considered, and the conclusions reached are as follows;