Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-03-05

Iowa, Ky. MINI, No, Neb., Nov, n.
J., ~ Y. ONO. oregon, S. c. ana Wis.
and he might have cited Gcorgia, kan
saB, North Carolina and Tennessee, See
Ryan vs.. kingsbury, Il S, ID. II, (da)
COO; state VS. Burrows, 90 Ctan) 10
Crcswcll VS. Smith, Lea. CreunD Gs5
90 n c. 2S3, and SO N, G., 280, There
can he no doubt that a similar statute
Is In force In many Of the other states
The courts Of all the states, AS wen as
OF the Federal courts always grant
equitable relief IN such cases ms that
put by our supreme court; that ID. In
cases uf fraudulent conveyanCcs in
which the proper parties can be pointed
out and the particulars OF the fraud,
etc, q discovery will be granted as am
cillary 10 that action; Beach on Mod
ern Equity jurisprudence Sec, SS3;
Pom. Ed. lur, vol D. section i4l5: Tied.
En- ,Iur,, Sec, 62q' Miss, Mills vs, Cohn,
lOj u. $. Il, 207; Agcr VS.. Murrey, l05
u $. II. 1876, This IL n strange anomaly
that In cases OF this kind, that Is, In
eases Of fraudulent conVeyances equity
W extend It's aid to creditors by en-
tertainiug bills aginat the proper party
when such bill points out the particular
property and specifies the particulars
Ia which the fraud was committed, and
viii grant discovery AS aucillary to
such action, but refuse such discovery
In suit where the complainant, the
Judgment creditor. could not name the
proper parties In his bill. nor point out
the particular property that he desired
TO be applied to the payment OF his
debt. aud could not specify the partic-
ulars In which the fraud consisted. but
simply desired u discovery Of these
facts from tho defendants, In the one
case discovery would be essential and
necessary before the proper aVerments
could be made. but equity would refuse
to render any assistance, In the other
case put by our supreme court II would
seem that when the creditor knew all
the facts necessary for him TO file his
bill against the proper parties, and
therein point out the property OF the
debtor trOudulently conveyed and to
specify the particulars In which the
fraud consists, that 1t would be entirely
superfiuous TO grant him q discovery
as aneillary to such an action.
"A creditors bill is on the other hand
usually In the nature OF bill OF dis
covery, more extended in its results,
not only does 1t reach property describ-
ed therein, but by means of this renf-
edy other species OF assets. and even
debts due the debtor OF which the cred
itor knew nothing and which were not
referred TO in the bill may he reached
through the fundamentally OF a re,
oeiNer. and applied TO the claim. For,
this reason It is often callsd an omnlhus'
bill" Wait on Fraudulent Convey
ances and Creditors Bills. latter part OF
Sec. g. See also Lewis VS.. Shainwall.
As Fed. r, 492.
"a court OF equity will aid iudg-
ment creditor to reach the property Of
his debtor by removing fraudulent
judgments or eonveyances or trans
fefs, which defeat his legal remedy at
law; and win also aid him where the
debtors property consists OF chooses IN
action, and mere equitable interests,
not liable TO be sold under execution:
and where debtor transfers his prop
erty IN fraud OF creditors, en- injunc-
tlon may be granted as Incidental to
the relief sought by the creditors hili;
and Will not necessarily grant him
double relsef under one bill by remov-
Ing the fraudulent obstruction IN the
way OF his execution, and also at the
same time enabling him TO reach the
debtors equitable assets. Beach on
1aasrn En. Iiru- sSa, 1kn u s. e07.