Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/33

PEBBt V. BHABPE. 1^ �^ho also filed his affidavit for an order of aitachment, setting ont in substance the allegations of the petition, and stating that "the said defendants fraudulently and criminally oontracted the debt, and fraudulently and criminally incurred the obligation, for which the said action bas been brought ;" and also that "the said defendants are about to dispose of the property Oi the said defendant George "W. Pierce, with the intent to defraud the creditors of him, the said George W. Pierce;" and also "that the said George W. Pierce bas disposed of a part of his property with intent to defraud bis creditors." �Writsof summons were issued, — one against Pierce, directed to the sberiff of Fairfield county; the other against Sharpe, to the sheriff of Mbntgomery county, — and both were returned served. �Orders of attachment were also issued, — one against each defend- ant. That against Sharpe was issued to the sheriff of Montgomery county ; was levied by him upon personal property of Sharpe, valued at $20,505.63, which was reieased to him on the execution and delivery of a forthcoming bond. The order of attachment against Pierce was directed to the sheriff of Fairfield county, and was by him levied upongoods and personal property of Pierce, which werealready in; his hands, under executions levied thereon upon the judgments entered against him by confession in the superior court of Montgom- ery county, in f avor of his co-defendant, Sharpe. �On December 14, 1880, the plaintiffa filed their petition for a re- moval of said cause to this court, and tendered a bond, conditioned as, requiced by law, which petition was granted, and the cause removed and certified into this court accordingly. �On November 27, 1880, the same day on which the civil action at law was begun, as above recited, the plaintiffs filed in the same court of common pleas for Fairfield county, Ohio, a petition against the same defendants in a suit praying for an injunction and equitable relief. �This petition recites, in substance, the allegations in that in the action at law, setting out in addition that the defendant Sharpe had for many years been a retail dealer in dry goods at Dayton, Ohio, and elsewhere, and that the defendant Pierce had been in his employ- aient as managing clerk, and that they had sustained relations of the closest confidence, intimacy, and friendship; that Pierce was entirely irresponsible, and known to be.so by Sharpe ; that on October 1, 1879, they entered into a collugive agreement for the sale by Sharpe to Pierce of the Blaekford county farm for $25,000, which it is alleged^ .^as woith uot;mo.re tha» $^,00.0 cash^ which agreement was in writ- ��� �