of the action is not only to avoid the conveyance as fraudulent, but to apply the land in payment of plaintiff's debt." An action in aid of an execution has been held not to be one to enforce a lien upon real property, 47 and there are other authorities holding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance need not be tried in the county where the property is located." If the real estate is situated in more than one county, suit may be brought in either county." Separate suits need not be brought in each county for land fraudulently conveyed to a single person.50 An action to reach personalty may be brought in the county where the debtor resides.5

§ 62. Parties plaintiff.—The general rule is that a suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance or judgment should be brought in the name of the party in interest, and a creditor may bring a suit in his own name and for his own benefit and need not make other creditors standing in the same situation parties,52 where it is not a general creditors' bill but merely one charging

Mich.-Krolik v. Bulkley, 58 Mich. 407, 29 N. W. 205.

Ohio.-Leaf v. Marriott, 4 Ohio S. & C. Pl. Dec. 402, 29 Cinc. L. Bul. 225.

8. C.-Augusta Sav. Bank v. Stelling, 31 S. C. 360, 9 S. E. 1028; New Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Wray, 28 S. C. 86, 5 S. E. 603, but the rule does not apply where the fraudulent conveyance is a mere incident to the suit and there is no prayer to set aside the conveyance.

46. Rawls v. Carr, 17 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 96.

47. Woodbury v. Nevada Southern R. Co., 120 Cal. 463, 52 Pac. 730; Beach v. Hodgdon, 66 Cal. 187, 5 Pac. 77.

48. Ga.-Coleman v. Franklin, 26 Ga. 368.

Ill.-Johnson v. Gibson, 116 Ill. 294, 6 N. E. 205.

Tex.-Lehmberg v. Biberstein, 51 Tex. 457; Vandever v. Freeman, 20 Tex. 333, 70 Am. Dec. 391.

49. Hunt v. Dean, 91 Minn. 96, 37 N. W. 574; Benton v. Collins, 125 N. C. 83, 34 S. E. 242, 47 L. R. A. 33; and New York cases cited in preceding notes.

50. Lindell Real Estate Co. v. Lindell, 133 Mo. 386, 33 S. W. 466.

51. First Nat. Bank v. Gibson (Neb. 1903), 94 N. W. 965.

52. N. Y.-Lopez v. Farmers', etc.,
Nat. Bank, 18 App. Div. 427, 46 N.
Y. Supp. 91; Edmeston v. Lyde, 1
Paige, 637, 19 Am. Dec. 454.

Ala. Freeman
V. Stewart, 119
Ala. 158, 24 So. 31, and he need not
make prior mortgagees parties.

54

fraud as against complainant.53 He may likewise file a bill in his own name if he owns the judgment, although it was recovered to the use of a third party. The assignee of a judgment may likewise maintain suit to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance by the judgment debtor, without joining the assignor as a party plaintiff.55 The rule is well established also that a creditor may bring an action in behalf of himself and all other creditors to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances or transfers, and to have the property sold to pay his and other debts, all sharing alike whose claims are in the same class.56 Several judgment creditors may join in an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance made by their common debtor, even where their claims are several and distinct.57 But while judgment creditors

Cal.-Baker v. Bartol, 6 Cal. 483. Ill.-Mann v. Ruby, 102 Ill. 348; Ballentine v. Beall, 4 Ill. 263.

Ind.-New v. New, 127 Ind. 576, 27 N. E. 154.

Mass.-Crompton v. Anthony, 95 Mass. 33; Silloway v. Columbia Ins. Co., 74 Mass. 199.

Mo.-Jackson v. Robinson, 64 Mo.

289.

N. J.-Annin v. Annin, 24 N. J. Eq. 184; Way v. Bragaw, 16 N. J. Eq. 213, 84 Am. Dec. 147.

53. Tissier v. Wailes (Ala. 1905), 39 So. 924.

54. Postlewait v. Howes, 3 Iowa, 365; Lewis v. Whitten, 112 Mo. 318, 20 S. W. 617.

55. Jones v. Smith, 92 Ala. 455, 9 So. 179; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210; Coale v. Mildred, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 278; Buckingham v. Walker, 51 Miss. 491, and the heirs of a deceased judgment creditor are not necessary parties complainant where the judgment was assigned by the judgment creditor in his lifetime.

56. N. Y.-Campbell v. Heiland, 55 App. Div. 95, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1116;

Louis v. Belgard, 17 N. Y. Supp. 882;
Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige, 637, 19
Am. Dec. 454. See also Hendricks v.
Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch. 283; Hutchin-
son v. Smith, 7 Paige 26.

Ill.-Chicago, etc., Land Co. v. Peck, 112 Ill. 108; Beebe v. Saulter, 87 Ill. 518.

Ind.-Carr v. Huette, 73 Ind. 378;
Barton v. Bryant, 2 Ind. 189.

Ky.—Baker v. Kinnaird, 94 Ky. 5,
21 S. W. 237, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 695.
Me.-Frost v. Libby, 79 Me. 56, 8
Atl. 149.

Md.-Birely v. Staley, 5 Gill & J. 432, 25 Am. Dec. 303.

57. N. Y.-White's Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344, 4 N. E. 734; Bailey v. Burton, 8 Wend. 329; Clarkson v. De Peyster, 3 Paige, 320; Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige, 637; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch.

139.

Ark.-Fry v. Kruse, 43 Ark. 142. Ind.-Armstrong v. Dunn, 143 Ind. 433, 41 N. E. 540; Elliott v. Pontius, 136 Ind. 641, 35 N. E. 562, 36 N. E. 421; Strong v. Taylor School Tp., 79 Ind. 208; Ruffing v. Tilton,

58

may unite in an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, the court is not required in such action to compel the plaintiff to bring them in. Several attachment creditors may unite in an action where the evidence shows that their levies are upon the same property." The joinder of a judgment creditor with a simple contract creditor, in a bill to set aside fraudulent conveyances made by a debtor, is permitted by statute in Alabama.60

59

§ 63. Parties defendant in general.-As a general rule all parties interested in the controversy, or who may be affected by the judgment or decree rendered therein, should be made parties, and all who are in any way interested are proper parties and should therefore be joined." One having no privity in the

N. J.-Morehouse v. Kissam, 58 N. J. Eq. 364, 43 Atl. 891; Lore v. Getsinger, 7 N. J. Eq. 191, rev'd 7 N. J. Eq. 693.

N. C.-Smith v. Summerfield, 108 N. C. 284, 12 S. E. 997; Mebane v. Layton, 86 N. C. 571.

S. C. Ferst v. Powers, 64 S. C. 221, 41 S. E. 974; Bomar v. Means, 37 S. C. 520, 16 S E. 537, 34 Am. St. Rep. 772.

One having no

Roberts, 24 W. Va. 702, other judgment creditors should be made parties.

Wis.-Gates v. Boomer, 17 Wis.

455.

Can.-Ferguson v. Kenney, 12 Ont. Pr. 455; Turner v. Smith, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 198.

58. White's Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344, 4 N. E. 734.

59. Brumley v. Golden, 27 Mo. App. 160.

60. Brooks V. Lowenstein, 124 Ala. 158, 27 So. 520; Gassenheimer v. Kellogg, 121 Ala. 109, 26 So. 29; Steiner Land, etc., Co. v. King, 118 Ala. 546, 24 So. 35; Steiner v. Parker, 108 Ala. 357, 19 So. 386; Tower Mfg. Co. v. Thompson, 90 Ala. 129, 7. So. 530.

61. N. Y.-National Broadway Bank v. Yuengling, 58 Hun, 474, 12 N. Y. Supp. 762; Hammond v. Hudson River Iron, etc., Co., 20 Barb. 378; Watts v. Wilcox, 13 N. Y. Supp. 492, 20 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 164.

63

alleged fraudulent conveyance, however, should not be made a party defendant.62 A creditor instituting an original action to set aside the fraudulent conveyance of the debtor, having a prior lien, is not a necessary or proper party to the action brought by a receiver, pending the first, for the same purpose. A creditor who seeks to subject to his debt property paid for, as alleged, by the debtor, though bought in the name of another, need not make the vendor a party, as he has no interest in the question." An attorney employed to examine the title to real estate and to prepare a conveyance of it is not a proper party to a creditor's bill to set aside the conveyance as fraudulent, when he is not charged with having any interest in the matter and no relief is sought against him." It is a general rule that all persons claiming a present interest in the property should be made parties defendant in an action to set aside a fraudulent

Cal.-Raynor v. Mintzer, 67 Cal. 159, 7 Pac. 431.

Fla.-Howse v. Moody, 14 Fla. 59. Ga.-Kruger v. Walker, 111 Ga. 383, 36 S. E. 794.

Ind.-Doherty v. Holliday, 137
Ind. 282, 32 N. E. 315, 36 N. E. 907.
Me.-American Agricultural Chemi-
cal Co. v. Huntington, 99 Me. 361, 59
Atl. 515.
Mo.-Burke v. Flournoy, 4 Mo. 116.
N. J.-Dunham v. Ramsey, 37 N. J.
Eq. 388.

Ohio.-Barrett v. Reed, Wright,

700.

Vt.-Wilson v. Spear, 68 Vt. 145, 34 Atl. 429.

Va.-Clough v. Thompson, 7 Gratt. 26; Greer v. Wright, 6 Gratt. 154, 52 Am. Dec. 111.

62. N. Y.-Gardner v. C. B. Keogh Mfg. Co., 63 Hun, 519, 18 N. Y. Supp. 391, where a complaint to set aside conveyances to a corporation, after

setting forth the alleged fraudulent transfer, further alleged that the debtors had also transferred a large amount of stock of the corporation to persons who were not bona fide creditors, with like fraudulent intent, the latter allegation being merely made to characterize the debtors' action, the assignees of such stock were not necessary parties to the suit.

Fla.-McDonald v. Russell, 16 Fla.

260.

Me.-Merrill v. McLaughlin, 75 Me. 64; Whitmore v. Woodward, 28 Me. 392.

Md.-Farrow v. Teackle, 4 Har. &

J. 271.

N. D.-Daisy Roller Mills v. Ward, 6 N D. 317, 70 N. W. 271.

63. Metcalf v. Del Valle, 64 Hun (N. Y.), 245, 19 N. Y. Supp. 16. 64. Bronsema v. Rind, 2 La. Ann. 959.

65. Davis v. Harper, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 463.

conveyance thereof." The cestuis que trustent as well as the trustee are necessary parties to a bill to set aside a trust deed as executed in fraud of creditors.67 But where the rights of a person claiming an interest in the property are not brought in question or affected by the action, such person is not a necessary although he may be a proper party. A party claiming an interest in a conveyance under a parol declaration of trust evidenced by parol only need not be made a party to a suit to set aside the conveyance, as such trust could not be enforced. No one can make himself a necessary party defendant to a suit to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance by purchasing or otherwise acquiring, pendente lite, an interest in the subject matter of the litigation.70

V. Brierfield

66. Ala.-Perkins Iron, etc., Co., 77 Ala. 403. Fla.-Howse v. Moody, 14 Fla. 59. Ind.-Davis v. Chase, 159 Ind. 242, 64 N. E. 88, 853, 95 Am. St. Rep. 294; Fletcher v. Mansur, 5 Ind. 267.

Ky.-Smiser V. Stevens-Wolford Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 501, 45 S. W. 357.

La.-J. Grossman's Sons v. Sanders, 114 La. 958, 38 So. 692; Vandine v. Eherman, 26 La. Ann. 388.

Minn.-Tatum v. Roberts, 59 Minn. 52, 60 N. W. 348.

Mo.-Judson v. Walker, 155 Mo. 166, 55 S. W. 1083.

N. J.-Miller v. Jamison, 24 N. J. Eq. 41; Williams v. Michenor, 11 N. J. Eq. 520.

N. C.-Le Duc v. Brandt, 110 N. C. 289, 14 S. E. 778.

S. C.-Sloan v. Hunter, 56 S. C. 385, 34 S. E. 658, 879, 76 Am. St. Rep.

551.

Tex.-Cleveland v. People's Nat. Bank (Civ. App. 1899), 49 S. W. 523.

Va.-Clough v. Thompson, 7 Gratt. 26; Bullock v. Gordon, 4 Munf. 450.

69

67. Talbott v. Leatherbury, 92 Md. 166, 48 Atl. 733; Thomas v. Torrance, 1 Ch. Chamb. (U. C.) 46.

68. N. Y.-Briggs v. Davis, 20 N. Y. 15, 75 Am. Dec. 363; Sprogg v. Dichman, 28 Misc. Rep. 409, 59 N. Y. Supp. 966.

U. S.-Venable v. Bank of U. S., 27 U. S. 107, 7 L. Ed. 364.

Ala.-Watts v. Burgess, 126 Ala. 170, 27 So. 763; Brooks v. Lowenstein, 124 Ala. 158, 27 So. 520; Williams v. Spragins, 102 Ala. 424, 15 So. 247.

Colo.-Clark v. Knox, 32 Colo. 342, 76 Pac. 372.

D. C.-Clark v. Bradley Coal, etc., Co., 6 App. Cas. 437.

Ill.-Kratz v. Buck, 111 III. 40. Ohio.-Bowlus v. Shanabarger, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 167.

Can.-Thompson v. Dodd, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 381.

69. Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 537.

70. Johnson v. Worthington, 30 Ill. App. 617.