Case ID: tenn_38/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick Fay v. Robert N. Jones et al.
    
    1. CHANCERY Pleading. Demurrer. Original and amended bill. If a demurrer is too broad it loses its effect. Hence, if a general demurrer is filed to an original and amended bill, and tbe original is defective and demurrable, yet tbe amended bill is not, tbe demurrer will not be sustained as to either.
    2. Same. Same. Dill multifarious. Objection to a bill because it is multifarious, can be taken only by special demurrer.
    3. Same. Same. Attachment. Acts of 1836 and 1843. If an attachment bill is filed, and no one of the grounds for an attachment embraced within the provisions of the attachment laws, is alleged, it will be dismissed upon demurrer.
    4. Pkattdulent Conveyances. Judgment not necessary before filing a bill. Act of 1852, eh. 365, 3 10. By the act of 1852, ch. 365, $ 10, a creditor, wKetlier he has a judgment or not, may file a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, and have satisfaction of his debt out of the property conveyed.
    PROM BEDPORD.
    At the February Term, 1858, Chancellor Ribley dismissed the original and amended bills, upon demurrer. The complainant appealed.
    E. A. Keebee, for the complainant.
    W. H. WiSENER, for the defendants.
   Wright, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Chancellor dismissed the bill upon demurrer, and the question is, whether his decree can be. maintained ?

We shall treat the bill and amended bill as one, because they were filed at the same time, and the Chancellor’s decree is upon both, and so we suppose the demurrer was intended.

So far as the complainant seeks relief, as the surety or stayor of Jones, the bill is demurrable, because it made no case for the issuance of an attachment under the acts of 1836 and 1843.

Jones is shown to be ■ a citizen of Bedford county, and it is not alleged that he is about to remove, or any other cause for an attachment stated.

If, therefore, the demurrer had been confined to this part of the bill, it would have been well taken.

But this was not the case. It is a general demurrer to the whole bill. And it appears that the defendant, Jones, is indebted to complainant in the sum of $2880.00, and it is alleged, that he had made a fraudulent conveyance of fifty-two acres of land -to the defendants, Brome and Jett, to hinder and delay his creditors; and the bill seeks a sale of this land, as well to pay this debt, as complainant’s liabilities, as surety and stayor.

As a creditor, whether in judgment or not, the bill was maintainable by complainant, under the act of 1852, ch. 365, sec. 10; and the demurrer being too broad, lost its effect upon every part of the bill. Story’s Eq. Pl., § 443.

But it is said the bill is multifarious, because it also seeks to subject Jones’ interest in another tract of land, but we do not think this is so, under the rule laid down in Johnson v. Brown et al., 2 Hum., 327.

But if it were, we apprehend the objection could only be taken by special demurrer. Story’s Eq. Pl., § 455.

We reverse the decree, overrule the demurrer, and remand the cause, that defendants may answer.