Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/393

BEATTT V. HINCKLBT. 385 �Beattt and others v. Hinckley and Husband. �(Circuit Cmirt, S. B. New Tork. January 20, 1880.) �"BxLr. TS Equity — Multipahiousness — Pbaudctlent Cokveyancb to WiFE— Grantbb, Executrix ov Deceased Grantor. — A bill in equity for an account against the executrix and former wife of a deceased trustee ig not bad for multifariousness because it prays, among other things, for an account of the value of certain property f raudulently con- veyed to such executrix by the testator in his lif e-time, in order to ayoid liability for a breach of trust. �In Equity, �Wheeleb, J. The wife, defenaant, is executrix of the will of George I, Beatty, who was trustee, under the will of James Beatty, of lands and stocks, to reçoive and collect the rents, dividende and profits thereof, and pay the same to James L. Beatty during his life, with remainder over to the next of kin» who are the orators, and who disposed of the property abso- lutely, and paid over the avails, to the amount of about $10,- 000, to the life tenant, who lost the same, and which bas never been paid to the oratora. She has assets belonging to the estate of her testator, and it is not contended but that she should account for those, and be decreed to pay the amount to the orators, but they are largely deficient. �After the loss of the funds by the life-tenant, he discharged the trustee from ail further claim in his behalf ; and the trus- tee conveyed to this defendant, then his wife, without any consideration, property of his own to a considerable amount, and more than was a reasonable provision for her, in viewof his liability for violating this trust, and probably intending to defeat that liability, which she understood. It is argued, in her behalf, that this property, so conveyed to her, cannot be reached to satisfy this claim, and that if it can be reached at ail, it cannot be in this suit, with the claim against her as executrix. �There is no pretence but that the claim of the orators was a just and lawful one against her testator in hie lif e-time, nor but that it is a lawful oue against his estate now. It seema �v.l.no.6— 25 ��� �