Summary
In Rambaut v. Mayfield, 8 N.C. 85, a creditor of D by bond filed his bill against D and M, charging that D had fraudulently conveyed property to M sufficient to pay his debt, and prayed a recovery, account and satisfaction.
Summary of this case from Peeples v. TatumOpinion
June Term, 1820.
(IN EQUITY.)
R. being a creditor of D. by bond, files his bill against D. M., charging that D. had fraudulently conveyed property to M. sufficient to pay his debt, and praying a discovery, account and satisfaction. Bill dismissed upon hearing, because R. had not reduced his debt to a judgment, and actually issued execution.
FROM WARREN. The bill charged that the defendant Davis was indebted to the complainants in a large sum, by bond, that was then fully due; and after the said debt was contracted and had fallen due, the said defendant had conveyed all his real and personal estate and assigned choses in action to Mayfield, the other defendant, fraudulently, and to a much larger amount than would discharge complainant's demand, and that Davis owned all the said property at the time they trusted him, and prayed for a discovery and an account, and that they might be paid their debt out of the estates and effects so conveyed (86) and assigned to Mayfield.
Both defendants answered, and denied the fraud; and the cause, being set down for hearing after testimony taken, was transferred to this Court for trial.
Upon the hearing, it was now, by Mordecai, for the defendants, objected that complainants could get no relief upon this bill, as it appeared that they were creditors of Davis by bond only. Before they can come here, even for discovery, they must reduce their debt to a judgment and take out execution, so that it may appear, in that way, that the debt is just and that satisfaction cannot be otherwise had from Davis. And to that effect he cited the cases of Angel v. Draper, 1 Vern., 399; Sherly v. Watts, 3 Atk., 200, and Hendricks v. Robinson, 2 John Ch. Rep., 296.
And for these reasons, PER CURIAM, the bill was dismissed, with costs, but without prejudice to complainants bringing another suit.
MURPHEY, J., sat for HENDERSON, J., in this case.
Cited: Hines v. Spruill, 22 N.C. 100; Brown v. Long, 36 N.C. 192, 3; Peeples v. Tatum, ib., 415; Wheeler v. Taylor, 41 N.C. 227; Bridges v. Moye, 45 N.C. 173; Brittain v. Quiett, 54 N.C. 330.