Opinion
03-25-1909
HAGEMAN v. BROWN et al.
Paul Q. Oliver, for complainant. George Ball, for defendants.
Bill by Aaron T. Hagernan against Charles G. Brown and another. Order overruling defendants' demurrer to the bill advised.
Paul Q. Oliver, for complainant. George Ball, for defendants.
LEAMING, V. C. The bill is filed by complainant, as, judgment creditor of defendant Charles G. Brown, for the purpose of enforcing the judgment against certain real estate, the legal title to which now stands in the name of defendant Roberta Brown. Defendants demur for want of equity. While the demurrer contains no specification pursuant to rule 209, it may for present purposes be considered as sufficient in that respect.
At the hearing it was urged by counsel for demurrants that the bill could not be supported because of the absence of an averment that complainant was a creditor of defendant Charles G. Brown at the time the premises in question were purchased by him and the legal title thereof by him placed in the name of Roberta Brown. Under the bill as framed that averment is unnecessary. After setting forth that defendant Charles G. Brown purchased the property in question, and paid for it with his own money, and caused the conveyance for the same to be made to defendant Roberta Brown, and also setting forth facts which negative the idea that the conveyance was a gift to defendant Roberta Brown, the bill avers that defendant Roberta Brown "has no beneficial interest whatever in the said premises, but holds the same in trust for her father, the said Charles G. Brown." With these averments the bill may be sustained as a bill to enforce the judgment against the equitable estate of defendant Charles G. Brown. Halsted v. Davison, 10 N. J. Eq. 290, 295; Newman v. Van Duyne, 42 N. J. Eq. 485, 7 Atl. 897; 2 Story's Eq. Juris. § 1216b.
I will advise an order overruling the demurrer.