Opinion
June Term, 1824.
A bill charged that husband, before marriage, made to his wife a bond, pay able after his death, for £ 30,000, for the purpose of defrauding creditors and that the administrator, by contrivance with the widow, was about to confess judgment thereon before the creditors could sue at law, and prayed an injunction and general relief; the answer admitted the existence of the bond for £ 30,000 as charged that suit was brought thereon against the administrator, and denied all design to defraud creditors, and the court sustained the injunction until the hearing.
THE bill stated that the complainants were the executors of William Holliday, and as such creditors of one James Porter, who executed to the complainants his obligation for the payment of $234; that James Porter died intestate and largely indebted, leaving his (199) widow, one of the defendants, surviving him, and administration of his estate was committed to Brand, the other defendant, and charged that the defendants, combining to defraud the creditors of James Porter, the administrator Brand refused to pay the debts of his intestate, pretending that the assets were first liable to satisfy a bond given by James Porter to his wife, dated before marriage, and made payable to her after his death for the sum of £ 30,000, and that such bond was more than sufficient to exhaust the assets; the bill further charged that the bond was given for the sole purpose of defrauding creditors, that it was not proved or registered, and during the lifetime of James Porter its existence was kept secret while he was in possession of a handsome estate, the property of his wife prior to her marriage, and by means thereof obtained extensive credit. The bill further charged that Brand, at the request of the widow, procured himself to be appointed administrator, and intended at the ensuing term of Greene County court to permit a judgment to be entered against him in some summary way on said bond in order to create thereby a lien on the assets in his hands in favor of the widow to the exclusion of the fair creditors of James Porter, who would be delayed in obtaining judgments on their claims by the ordinary forms of law. The bill concluded with a prayer for an injunction and for general relief.
The widow in her answer stated that at the time of the treaty of marriage between her and Porter she was possessed of real and personal estate of large value, while Porter possessed very little property; upon the treaty Porter proposed to secure to his intended wife her estate, but she, desirous of advancing Porter's interest and having confidence in him, preferred that he should execute the bond mentioned in the bill, and he accordingly did so. The answer admitted that she had sued Brand on the bond, which was not proved or recorded and the existence of which was not generally known. (200)
The answer of Brand, the other defendant, stated that suit was brought by the widow upon the bond, and he was advised that as representative of his intestate he could not object to the bond, and that he had not confessed judgment thereon, though he had since on another claim which exhausted all the assets of James Porter.
Upon the coming in of the answers a perpetual injunction was decreed, with costs, whereupon defendants appealed. And now the cause coming on in this Court upon bill and answer —
Let the injunction be continued till the hearing.
remarked that the answer did not admit complainants to be creditors, as they alleged, and that as yet the Court had no testimony on that point.