Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/391

STAFFORD NAT. BANK V. SPUAGUB. 377 �fact sought to be raised by the bill of exceptions, except so far as any of such questions were presented by the demurrer. �The same decision is made in the case of Town of Liions, plaintiff in error, against the Albany City National Bank, defendant in error. ���Staffoed Nat. Bank v. Speague and others. (Gvreuit Court, D. Gonneeticut. August 17, 1881.) �1. EqniTT Plbading — Federai, Coxtrts. �in the federal courts legal causes of action cannot be joided with equitable in the same bill. �2. BaMB— MULTrPARIOUBNESS. �A bill is not demurrable on the ground of multifariousness •when the joinder therein of two distinct matters prevents a needless multiplicity of suits, and neither inconveniences the defendants nor causes them additional expense. �Ratcliffe Hicks and Jeremiah Halsey, for plaintiff. �Charles E. Perkins, for defendants. �Shipman, D. J. This is a demurrer to the plaintiff's bill upon the ground of multifariousness. The plaintiff originally brought its peti- tion in equity to the state court, alleging, in substance, as f ollows : That it was a judgment crediter of Amasa Sprague and William Sprague, and that to seeure its unsatisfied judgment it had duly, on June 10, 1880, filed its judgment lien upon a large amount of real estate in this state, described in the petition, and situate in the towns of Sterling, Canterbury, Scotland, Windham, and Franklin, alleged to belong to the said Spragues, or one of them, which land had been attached in the suit upon which said judgment was obtained; that in December, 1873, Zaehariah Chaffee caused to be recorded in the land records of the towns of Windham, Sterling, and Scotland a trust deed dated November 1, 1873, by which deed said Amasa and William Sprague pretended to convey to said Chaffee all the lands described in said eertificate of lien ; that said deed is fraudulent and void as to the plaintiff for sundry alleged reasons, one being that at the time of its execution and delivery the grantors were hopelessly insolvent, and executed and delivered the deed without consideration, for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reach of their creditors, and to delay and hinder them in the collection of their claims. It is further alleged that said deed provided that, after the. payment of certain extension notes, to be accepted by the Sprague creditors in discharge of their original claims, the residue of the ��� �