Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/785

SHELDON V. KKOK0K NOBTBBEN LINE PACKET CO. 771 �tain what were his just legal rights. ; As to the general propositions there can be no doubt under the authorities. �Is the bill objectionable because two separate judgment creditera unite in assailing transactions whieh, have resulted, acoording to the allegation made, in sweeping away all tangible property of their common debtor from their reach? I think nofc.'/ Nothing is more common than for several judgment creditors, haying exhausted their legal remedies, andhaving equal right to resort to the property of the same debtor for the satisfaction of their claims^ to unite in assailing a fraudulent conveyance oi transfer of the debtor's property. "For they all have a common interest in the; suit; and, if they succeed; the decree will be equally beneficiai to all in proportion to their respective interests." Story, Eq. PI. (9th Ed. by Gould,) § 537a, 633, 286; Brinkerhoff'v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139; Hamlin v. Wright, 23 Wis, 494. It is equally clear, I think, that the bill is not multi- farious, and that there is no misjoinder of causes pf action, because Davidson and the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company are united as defendants. �Taking (as we must upon demurrer) all thematerial allegations of the bill to be true, it appears that the transfcrs complaincd of were all made in execution of a plan or scheme to strip the Northern Union Packet Company of all its tangible property, so that its creditors, some of whom were then pressing their claims by suit, could not reach any of it by the ordinary process of lav?. Those two defend- ants are, in effect, charged to have been confederates, with the man- agers of the Northern IJnion Packet Company, in carrying out the fraud to the injury of the creditors of the insolvent corporation. They conspired (one, perhaps, by more distinct and numerous acts than the other) with the corporation to hinder, delay, and defraud its creditors. They are charged with being in the possession of tltf fruits of a fraudaient scheme of which they were cognizant, and in the execution of which, it is alleged, they were active participants. They are, consequently, upon the theory of the suit, interested in defeating the complainants upon the issue, sharply defined, that the property demanded by complainants was disposed of to the defendants in pur- suance of a fraudaient scheme, in the execution of which they givo their aid. The relations which, according to the bill, the defendant Davidson held to all the property transferred, as well as to the variouS corporations which at different times controlled its use, being of such a character as to preclude the possibility (the allegations of the bill being sastained) of upholding the conveyance to him, the transfers ��� �