Case ID: sc-eq_6/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colcock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. Huntingdon, James M. Lowry, W. H. Capers and others v. James G. Spann.
    many *9 • G. Spann, Esq. when at the bar, ] demands against J. W. Rees placed in his hands for collection; on some of which he had obtained judgments and issued executions. James G. Spann received from Rees large sums of money, but did not apply them to the payment of the debts in his hands, except one debt of $550. Meanwhile the sheriff raised large sums of money upon these executions, some of which he paid over to the execution creditors; and in one instance paid over to an execution creditor, Moody, whom Spann also afterwards paid. Rees then assigned, November 1820, to Capers, Lowry, Huntingdon and others, the moneys in Spann’s hands undisposed of, they being his creditors. James Haynesworth, Josiah Haynesioorth, William Taylor, William Hesher, who were embraced in this assignment, and other execution creditors who were not, insisted that the assignment by Rees conferred no right upon his assignees to their prejudicebecause Spann ought to have applied the moneys in his hands to the executions which he had issued; in which case, large sums of money which were subsequently raised by sales by the sheriff of Rees's property, and which were applied in extin-guishment of these executions, would have been a fund in the sheriff’s hands, to pay them the said Haynes-worths, and other junior creditors. The Commissioner reported against tlje claim of the assignees, and the exceptions of the assignees, Capers, Lowry and Hwnting-don, were overruled by the decree of the Chancellor; from which they appealed, upon the ground, that the creditors who obtained an assignment from Rees were to be preferred to the execution creditors, for whom Colonel Spann did not appear.
    
      1826.
    
      Columbia,
    
    
      Bonafide creditors, who obtain the ag_ signment of a fuñdTwiíl not >ed as. to such ofprior judg™ C1'edi'
    Judgments have no lien upon money.
    
      
      W. F. He Saws sure, for appellants.
    . S. H. Miller, contra.
   Curia, per

Colcock, J.

I take it to be clear that the money in the hands of Spann undisposed of was the property of Rees, and consequently subject to his disposal. Nor can it be pretended that the executions which-Were lodged in the sheriff’s hands could bind it. Rees then assigns this money to certain bond fide creditors, and they thereby acquire a legal jight to it. All bona fide creditors stand on the same footing of equity when equities are the same. But in distributing a fund between them, the Court of Equity cannnot divest one of them of any legal right which he may have acquired. Where equity is equal the law must prevail. This doctrine is so well established that it would appear to be work of supererogation to refer to authorities in support A ° rr of it. Indeed in some cases it has been carried to an extent which, I think, may be questionable. The authorities are collected in page 61 of Francis’s Maxims of * a Equity.

ay^'c^tors stand?n'he san** tooting of equity; but in-dlslu-buiing i fund be-twe.en them> equity can not divest one of may have

Where equity is equal law must pre-

The decree of the Chancellor must therefore be versed, and the Commissioner is ordered to ascertain the amount in the hands of Mr Spann, which is ordered to be paid to the assignees of Rees.

Decree reversed.