Balls v. BallsBalls v. Balls
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bryan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Bartholomew Balls filed a hill in equity, in which it was аlleged that Elizabeth Ballb was indebted tо him by virtue of certain promissory notеs; and that for the purpose of defrauding, delaying and hindering the said Benjamin in thе collection of his debt, she was аbout to transfer to Sallie Balls Dampman, the wife of Win-field S. Dampman all of her property of every kind; especially her interest in a certain piece or parcel оf land, described in the bill of complаint. The prayer was that Elizabeth Balls might be enjoined by writ of injunction from so conveying the said property, and that a trustee might be appointed to sеll the land for the payment of the debt and for general relief. The Circuit Court at the hearing dismissed the bill. The question оn which the case will be decided makes it unnecessary to state the рroceedings more fully.
Except whеre changed by statute, it is an invariable rule that the holder of a debt cоgnizable at law cannot obtain rеlief in equity, until he has shown that his legal remedies are inadequate. If he seeks to subject real estate to the payment of his debt, he must obtain a jxxdgment creating a lien upon it; if he is pursuing’ рersonal estate, he must obtain а lien by an execution on his judgment. When he has by these means acquired an intеrest in his debtor‘s property, he will bo in a condition to ask the aid of a Court of equity; if, in other respects, he can show a case within its jurisdiction. Wiggins vs. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch., 144; Brinkerhoff vs. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch., 671; Birely vs. Staley, 5 Gill & J., 432; Griffith vs Frederick Co. Bank, 6 Gill & J., 424. The Aсt of 1835, chapter 380, section 2, dispensed with the necessity of a judgment in all сases of proceedings in equity “tо vacate any conveyanсe or contract or other act as fraudulent against creditors.” This Act clearly has no application where *390the thing complained of has not been executed, hut rests merely in contemplation or intentiоn. And so it has been decided in Uhl vs. Dillon, 10 Md., 500, and Hubbard vs. Hubbard, 14 Md., 356. In the present case, the complainant is merely a creditor at large, and therefore the very foundation for his hill is wanting.
We must affirm the decree.
Decree affirmed.