Regester v. Regester

Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from an order of Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, overruling the demurrers to the bill of complaint filed by the appellants as defendants in the Court below. The ground of the demurrers was that the bill was multifarious for uniting in one proceeding, agáinst several defendants between' whom there was no privity, separate and distinct causes of action. The bill was filed by the appellee, Henry S. Regester, against Samuel W. Regester and his son, two daughters and son-in-law.

It is alleged in the bill that on May 9th, 1903, the defendant, Samuel-W. Regester, promised to pay to the plaintiff ten thousand dollars for certain stock to be thereafter delivered to him, of which sum he paid to the plaintiff five hundred and five dollars on account but no more. That upon the failure to receive further payments on account of the purchase money the plaintiff on August 3rd, 1903, after due notice to the defendant, Samuel W. Regester, sold the whole of the stock at public auction at his risk, realizing therefrom $1,900, which was duly credited upon the said purchase money; and thereafter brought suit against him in the Court of Common Pleas for the portion of the purchase money still remaining unpaid and on November 20th, 1905, recovered a judgment against him for $7,686 and costs. The bill then' alleges that pending the transactions aforesaid' Samuel W. Regester, while so indebted to the plaintiff, volun ³⁶¹ tarily and without consideration and with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud the complainant and prevent the collection of the debt, conveyed and transferred on August 4th, 1903, to his son,Edward C. Regester, 300 shares and to his daughter, Louisa Burch, 200 shares and to his daughter, Hester Spice, 200 shares of the Capital Stock of the Central Foundry Company of New Jersey, and on December 22nd, 1904, conveyed to his son-in-law, T. Warren Burch, a lot of ground and improvements on St. Paul street in Baltimore City. The bill further avers upon information and belief that the defendant, Samuel W. Regester, has made transfers of other stocks and property to his said co-defendants without consideration andwith the same fraudulent intent.

It is also alleged that the plaintiff has exhausted his remedy at law by issuing an execution on his said judgment which was returned nulla bona by the Sheriff. The prayer of the bill is for an answer under oath and discovery by the defendants touching transfers of property from Samuel W. Regester to the others and by them to third persons, for vacating the alleged fraudulent transfers set forth in the bill, for an injunction and receiver, and for money decrees against those of the defendants to whom the alleged fraudulent transfers were made, for the value of the property so transferred to them and for further relief. The demurrers of the defendants assigned the multifariousness of the bill as the cause of demurrer. The learned Judge below committed no error in overruling the demurrers of the defendants.

It is well settled that a judgment creditor who has exhausted his remedy at law by the issue of a fruitless execution is entitled to proceed in equity to discover and reach the equitable assets real and personal of his debtor. In order to reach such assets the creditor is entitled to have set aside and annulled any fraudulent conveyances by which they have been covered up. He is entitled to this equitable relief not only against the debtor but also against all persons who have voluntarily and without consideration permitted themselves to be made the custodians and ³⁶² apparent owners of the assets which the debtor has endeavored to fraudulently conceal. • In fact we do not understand the appellants to dispute that the creditor is entitled to equitable relief of the character and to the extent stated, but they insist that in the exercise of his right he cannot proceed under the same bill against the debtor and a number