The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 86
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
258 FEDERAL REPORTER
had transferred. Where a creditor invokes.the aid of a court of equity
to set aside transfers by. the debtor of his property in fraud of the
Creditor, and to subject transferred property in which the debtor no
longer has any beneficial interest, and shows that. it is impossible to ob-
tain a judgment at law against the debtor within the jurisdiction where
the suit in "equity is brought, nothing more is required to show that
the creditor has no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. A
creditor so situated is entitled to resort to a court of equity. National
Tube Works v. Ballou, 146 U. S. 517. 13 Sup. Ct. 165, 36 L. Ed. 1070;
Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688, 25 L. Ed. 1004; Williams v. Adler-
Goldman Commission Co., 227 Fed. 374, 142 C. C. A. 70; Hardware
Co. v. Driggs, 13 App. D. C. 272; N. T. Bank v. Wetmore, 124 N.
Y. 241, 26 N. E. 548.
 In behalf of the appellees it is contended that the dismissal of
the bill is sustainable on the ground stated in the decree, namely:
"That the defendants Adam McArthur, J. Sprunt Newton, and W. M. Walk-
er are necessary parties to this cause, and that they are not citizens or resi-
dents of the state of Florida, and not subject to the process of this court, and
cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction thereof by personal or constructive
The property sought to be subjected to the satisfaction of the ap-
pellant's demands is the above referred to Florida property which for-
merly belonged to Adam McArthur, and was transferred by him as
above stated. Under the averments of the bill, that former owner of
the property in question no longer has any interest in it. He has no
such interest in the subject of the suit as requires that he be made a
party to it. He would not be prejudiced or affected by a decree sub-
jecting the property in question to the satisfaction of the appellant's
demands. The attacked transfers and conveyances are binding as be-
tween him and his transferees or grantees, the resident defendants pro-
ceeded against. The averments of the bill show that those transfers
are not binding upon the appellant, the transferror's creditor. Relief
sought could be granted without affecting either of the three nonresi-
dents who were named as defendants. As to them, the suit can be
abated, and it may then be prosecuted against the resident defendants.
No one of the three named nonresidents is an indispensable party to
The court erred in dismissing the bill. Its decree to that effect is
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/100/: accessed April 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.