Case Name: James N. Wilson v. B. G. Beadle et al.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1859-04
Citations: 2 Head 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: James N. Wilson v. B. G. Beadle et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 510–514

Head Matter:
James N. Wilson v. B. G. Beadle et al.
1. Attachment. Act of 1843, ah. 29, 1. In what eases an attachment will lie. By the act of 1843, ch. 29, ¡S -1, in all cases where a 'debtor shall he absconding or concealing himself, or his property or effects, a creditor may sue out an attachment agains t the property debts, choses in action, and effects of such debtor, in the same manner that such process may be obtained against absconding or non-resident debtors under the different statutes in force in this State.
2. Same. Same. Judgment not necessary before suing out the attach-1nent. Chancery Jurisdiction. The act of 1843 confers upon the Chancery Court jurisdiction for the recovery of demands purely legal in attachment cases, and no previous suit or judgment, on the part of the creditor, is necessary before suing out the attachment.
3. Same. Act of 1852, ch. 365, jl 10. Fraudulent conveyances. By the act of 1852, ch. 365, $ 10, a creditor is authorized to file a bill for an attachment, without a judgment at law and an execution with a return of nulla bona, in all cases where a conveyance is made by a debtor, of property, either real, personal or mixed, of any description to which he has a legal or equitable title, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding his creditors.
4. Same. Same. Same. Embraces choses in action. This act not only embraces conveyances of what is, strictly, termed property, but also fraudulent assignments of claims, and every species of choses in action.
BTtOM MEMPHIS.
The bill was dismissed by his Honor, Judge Caruth-ERS, upon demurrer, at the May Term, 1858. The bill and amended bill, in substance, charged that the defendant, Beadle, was indebted to. the complainant in the sum of $500; that Beadle and his wife sold a tract of land, jointly, to their co-defendant, W. L. Delany, for the sum of $2500, he executing his notes for the purchase money; that the note first due was payable to and endorsed by the defendant, Einnie, and the others were payable to his wife, Dorcas C. Beadle; that the notes payable to Dorcas C. Beadle were executed to her and endorsed to the defendant, Payne, to defraud the creditors of the said B. Gr. Beadle, and that he was concealing his property and effects.
Yerger and Sullivan, for the complainant.
Vanbe and Anderson, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Weight, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Chancellor dismissed the bill and amended bill upon demurrer.
This decree is erroneous.. The act of 1843, ch. 29, sec. 1, provides (among other things) that in all cases where a debtor shall be absconding or concealing himself, or his property or effects, it shall be lawful for the creditor to obtain an attachment against the property, debts, choses in action, and effects of such debtor, in the same manner as such process may be obtained against absconding or non-resident debtors under the different statutes now in force in this State. In the ease of Isaacks and wife v. Edwards, 7 Hum., 466, it was held, that this act of Assembly conferred upon the Chancery Court jurisdiction for the recovery of demands purely legal in attachment cases, and that no previous suit or judgment on the part of the creditor was necessary.
This embraces the present case. The amended bill, if the original does not, alleges that the defendant, B. G-. Beadle, is concealing his property and effects, and was concealing the same at the time of filing the original bill.
But it is said the amended bill contains no prayer for an attachment. This was unnecessary. The original bill did, and the amended bill incorporated itself with, and become a part of it. Moreover, we think, the original bill itself made a proper case for an attachment under the act of 1852, ch. 365, sec. 10, if it did not under the act of 1843.
Under that statute it was not necessary for the creditor to come into Chancery with a judgment at law, and an execution with a return of no property. He was authorized to file a bill in all cases where a conveyance is made by a debtor, of. property, either real, personal or mixed, of any description, to which the title was legal or equitable, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding his creditors..
It is argued here, that the word conveyance used in the statute, does not comprehend the fraudulent assignment of a chose in action. We think it does. It is true, that in its more restricted sense it is often limited to conveyances of what is strictly termed property; but, in its more enlarged meaning it embraces assignments of claims, and every species of choses in action. Here the words of the act are very comprehensive, and statutes mads to suppress fraud are to be liberally expounded.
Again, it is argued that the notes on Delany, whether made payable to B. G. Beadle, the debtor, and by him. assigned to his wife, D. C. Beadle, 'or made payable to her directly, would, as between them, they being husband and wife, be a mere nullity, and leave the title to the notes still in the husband, and that such an assignment could not be considered as standing in the way of creditors within the meaning of the act of 1852.
If we were to concede this, to be so, (1 Bac. Ab. Baron and Fame D., 705; McNeilage v. Halloway, 1 Bora. and A., 218,) still the bill and amended bill go further. They allege that the defendant, B. G. Beadle, had made, or caused his wife to make, a fraudulent assignment and deposit of these notes with the defendant Payne, to hinder and delay his creditors.
The decree will be reversed, and the cause remanded for an answer.