New-York tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1841-1842, 1841-09-21

Presi4tpt Of TIRE Clinton Bank. Dtieniani.
Rroar TO 4 TRANSFER or BANK SroeK-An
owner Of Bank Stock sold LIS snare; 10 aholAeF 'o'
1,,.iI co,ei3e-a,on and delivered iae certificates
;,I, = ,oV.er TO transfer. The assignee sub
,,d,,. sold the shares an. then obtained the power
and handed it 10 the purchaser from him. Before
This last transfer and the execution OF the power e
criminal owner made assignment 81 a.! His estate
eoi and personal for the benefit OF certain CREDITORS
a,og WHOM was the Bslk. II was question vine
,b.r The Stock was "A; all covered ~ the language
or me assignment but the Court assumed IL did SO.
HELD that the RICH, the shares vested absolutely
ty the delivery e the certificates upon valuable con-
sideration i,huoi accompanying power to transfer
That the title vested in the purchaser, and in Is as
sicnee from that date and that they had prior RICH;
over creditors under the assignment.
HELD, also, that By the General Banking Law,
and the articles of Association. there restrc
ton upon sale and transfer while the owner was IN
debed the Bank. implied lien in is favor existed.
and transfer could not be refused although the parry
was largely indebted 10 it.
Held ,hatthc purchaser entitled to TRANSFER,
aud to recover the difference in value Of the Stock
any time bet~ cen the demand and refusal, and the
decree.
Isaec NJ. Smith on 6eha!G SeY) Mr. uaekay for corn
vs. painan Mr.. Smith for
Money C0mstoeE, Ececs,ri1, &c. } defendant.
A Judgment creditor of deceased debtor who made a
fraudulent assignment of prOpcrty IN his lis mo, may
6c bill on his own behalf and ioE is exclusive atvan
debtor vas living The und Is not assets where such
creditor had filed his bill behalf Of himself aud all Others
who should coGc and contribute AID creditor had
united with him liberty was given 10 amend by striking
the clause IN question.
rhe Ass.rn; Vice Chancellor having decided upoa the
facts that the assignment iauducu which part OF the
opinion il 5 needless to state, proceeded
The difficulty in this case arises from the death OF
the assignee and Judgment debtor before the bill was
fled The bill is by j1dgmen, creditor on behalf
of himself and all others who should come in and
contribute to the expenses of the suit.
The leading object of the bill is to obtain pro-
perry and its rvaiIs transferred by the assignment
in question which | have held fraudulent. The
executors al . made parties, and there Is prayer
for an account against them, the effect Of which
shall afterwards examine.
The bill was originally in Tie usual form, ana
after the demurrer allowed was put in the prcsen;
form upon the supposi,ion tina, the death Of Il
party such a bill must be in that shape, in order
that the fund recovered should be treated assets
and distributed according the statute which al
ter payment of debt to the United States and
gives preference to judgements according TO their
dates, . r. 5. 81 @27. 1t is also stated that his
Honor the Vice Chancellor inclined TO this view
of the point upon allowing the demurrer. There
we're however, several other objections to the bill
then involved.
Ny first impressions upon the subject were the
same. But the able argument o. the Court in
the case of the Bank Of he Jnited States vs..
Burke q Backiord's Rep. lll indiana) has sat
istied me that the rule is otherwise.
In that case ono C0ner to present his creditors
reaching his property, conveyed certain premises
TO Dugan. Sometime afterwards DO died, indebted
10 Burke and Vattier, to the complainant and to
one Hutchinson among others Administration
was taken out. but the Estate was wholly inSolvcnt
Burke and Vaitier brought suits and recovered
judgements against the administrators. They filed
a bill PRAYING TO have the land subjected to their
judgements Tue Circuit Court decrccd that the
transfer was frauducnt-tha the Administrators
should sell the land, and app! the proceeds in
payment OF the debt.
statute of the State provides tha upon a sale
of Real Estate to supply deficiency OF the per-
sonal TO pay debts the residue OF the funds Is 10
be divided among the creditors according to the
amount of ;hcir demands wittout regard 10 Metr
dignity.
On a writ of error the Supreme Court reversed
the judgement below. 1t was held tina, the Judge
men creditors by filing their bill had obtained Il
preference over the fund in question. That the
meneys were not assets in the hands OF the Adj
ministrators He succeeded only to the rights OF
the Intestate. and had no other. That Interstate
could not have claimed the property against his
CONVEYANCE. 1t formed part OF his Estate. Ii
wa, gone from him and his heirs forever. The
grantee was considered in equity as Trustee for
the creditors: in other words his title was incum-
bcrcd with equitable mortgage TO the amount OF
the creditors claims.
| consider the reasoning of this case u=answcra-
bic rs applicable to the one before me, in which
nothing but personal property is the subject OF the
assignment There it real estate, but there
WAS no other judgement recovered except those OF
the creditors who filed the bill The question Of
priority among judgements did not arise
In BrnI.ner VS. NanriNc g Blachford 4S5)
one Judgement creditor filed the bill on behalf o;
! himself and two others, who were named In IT.
The bill was after the death OF the debtor, TO set
aside confession of judgement rs fraudulent, ard
a purchase under it, The decree aside the con-
iessisn &c and ordered the lands to be sold to
satisfy the compliments. Ii is not stated whether
thew we're to be paid according to priority equally.
In BrockmGn W.. Bocm0n, Hill, Oh. rep. 33S 5.
Carr however. it was held that where a bills fled
BY creditors to avoid the alienation Of deceased
person for fraud his executor administrator i n
necessary party; and if the court aside the con-
veyance it will order the property to be applied IN
course Of administration. The suing creditors are
not entitled a preference.
This is the whole of the case. No facts or ar
guments are stated However the important
case of Broom Nc 9onaid, (Hill 800 appears
TO sustain the doctrine. No judgement indeed had
been obtained at law against the debtor in his life
tune; but under bill by administrators fer disrri-
baton of the assets the creditors were restrained
from proceeding at law; and then, as | gather
filed their bill 10 set aside conveyances Of the de-
ccdcnt.
But there are some cases in our own courts bear
ing upon the question.
In Osborne vs. Moss G Johnson Rep. l6l] the