Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/123

 GILBEET V. QUIMBT. 115 �there is any ground of relief. It is doubtless true that, by the law of New York, where this partnership was and these transactions took place, individual creditors have a prefer- ence as to individual property over firm creditors, (3 Kent Comm. 64; Murray v. Murray, 5 John. Ch. 60,) although the law may be different in some other places. Bardicell v. Perry, 19 Vt. 292. But whether the orator bas such paramount lien or not, does not seem to be very material to the decision liere, for the defendants are not asserting any lien that the orator is bound to take notice of, or that can affect bis rights in any degree, aceording to bis own argument. If the defendants were about to dispose of individual property by creating a lien upon it, which would be good but for the orator's paramount equity, there would be occasion for him to assert bis equity. Till then he bas no ground to complain. �The assignee holding the dividend ordered to be paid ta Alden Adams, and the creditors of Alden, are both before the court, and if there were grounds for it the dividend should be taken to pay his debt. He is not a party to this suit, but should be, if his property and rights are to be adjudicated upon in it. If that lack could be supplied, then the question would remain whether a court of equity could grant the relief. A bill for the purpose of appropriating the dividend to the debt would be in effect an action at law, (Wilson v.. Koontz, 7 Cranch, 202;) and if the dividend could not be reached at law, there is no good reason apparent why it could be by such a bill. There is no relief about the dividend which a court of equity could furnish to any party that a court of law could not. The fund is subject to the order of the district court,. and neither could interfere with that. There must be some ground for equitable relief in reacbing the property of the debtor before a bill will lie in such a case. Public Works v» Colwmbia Collage, 17 Wall. 521. There does not appear to- beany ground on which the bill can be sustained. �Let there be a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, with. costs to such defendants as bave answered the biJl. ��� �