Swift v. Arents
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District. The complaint in this case averred that the plaintiff had recovered judgment against Arents & Co., on which an execution had been issued, and returned, no property found; that Arents & Co. had conveyed certain town lots to the other defendants to defraud creditors, and praying a sale of the property to pay the judgment; in fact, containing the substantial averments usual in a creditor’s bill under the old system of practice.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District. The complaint in this case averred that the plaintiff had recovered judgment against Arents & Co., on which an execution had been issued, and returned, no property found; that Arents & Co. had conveyed certain town lots to the other defendants to defraud creditors, and praying a sale of the property to pay the judgment; in fact, containing the substantial averments usual in a creditor’s bill under the old system of practice. The defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that an action of this kind would not lie under the new code; that the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
The demurrer was improperly sustained. The bill is filed by a creditor asking relief against fraudulent transfers and concealment of his property by the debtor. This is a substantial ground of equity jurisdiction, and we see no reason for refusing to entertain it.
Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Stock-Growers' Bank v. NewtonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
- McCutcheon v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Rapp v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Watkins v. WilhoitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894