And for these reasons,
the bill, was dismissed with costs i but without prejudice to Complainants” bringing another suit.
Murpiiet, Judge, sat for Henderson, Judge, in this ease.
Rambaut v. Mayfield, 8 N.C. 85, 1 Hawks 85 (1820)
June 1820
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
8 N.C. 85, 1 Hawks 85
Rambaut, Gernon & Co. v. Mayfield & Davis.
From Warren.
IN EQUITY.
R. being a creditor of D. by bond, files his bill against D. & M. charging that D. had fraudulently conveyed property to 11. sufficient to pay his debt, and praying a discovery, account and satisfaction. Hill dismissed upon hearing,because R. had not reduced his debt to a judgment, and actually issued execution*.
The bill charged that the Defendant, Davis, was indebted to the Complainants in a large sum, by bond, that was then fully due, and after the said debt was contracted and had fallen due, the said Defendant had conveyed all his real and personal estate, and assigned choses in action to Mayfield, the other Defendant, fraudulently, and to a much larger amount than would discharge Complainants’ demand, and that Davis owned all the said property at the time they trusted him, — and prayed for k discovery and *86an account, and that they might be paid their debt out of the estates and effects so conveyed and assigned to Mayjield.
Both Defendants answered, and denied the fraud j and. tj,ie cause, being set down for hearing after testimony taken, was transferred to this Court for tria!.
Upon the hearing, it was now, by Mordecai, for the Defendants, objected, that Complainants coüld get no relief upon this bill, as it appeared that they were creditors of Davis by bond only. Before they can come here even for discovery, they must reduce their debt to a judgment and take out execution, so that it may appear, in that way, that the debt is just and that satisfaction cannot be otherwise had from Davis: And to that effect, he cited the cases of Angel v. Draper,* Sherly v. Watts, † and Hendricks v Robinson. ‡