Bradley v. Bond

Jones, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This seems to us a very plain case and there is no need to elaborate it. The facts of the case and the respective contentions of the parties are stated in the opinion filed in the case by the learned Judge below. There are two questions in the case.

First is whether the appellee Bond was a proper party to the proceedings below. Of this there would seem to be no room for doubt. The proceedings were instituted on behalf of all the creditors of James S. Calder. Bond was shown beyond question to have been a creditoi.

As a creditor too he was shown to have an interest in maintaining the' priority of the judgment of Frank H. Jacobs. It was but a matter of course to make him a party to the proceedings and there could be no prejudice to anybody therefore in the nunc pro tunc order of the Court below passed on the 14th of September, 1904. The other question is as to the priority of the judgment of Frank H. Jacobs over those of the junior judgment creditors who are seeking to defeat this priority. There ⁶⁹⁷ can be no doubt of the legal priority of this judgment over those of the judgment creditors who are thus seeking to postpone it to their own.

This legal priority can only be defeated by the junior encumbrancers showing some equity which the Court ought to and can allow to have that effect. No such equity has been shown. On the contrary there is a