Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/787

 SHAINWALD V. LEWIS. 776 �he had so placed his property that none of it was left visiblei so as to be taken upon execution, with the intent to defraud the complainant ; and it particularly chargea' that Pettit, at the filing of the eecond snpplemental bill, was possessed ofreal or Personal property, or otiier property of some ntime ot nature, to a large amount; that he -was possessed of or entitled to public stocks, to stock in banks, or other incorporated com- panies, and to rents in real estate ; that he held bills of ex- change, promissory notes, and choses in action to a large ambunt; and that property, real or personal, was held by others in trust for him, and by eolorable title. The bill stated and enumerated particular acts of fraud which it charged upon the defendant, and concluded by praying a fuU answer and discovery, and that the defendant might be de- creed to satisfy the judgments obtained against him, and that Bufficient of his property be set apart fbr that purpose." �The striking similarity of these allegations to those of the bill under consideration cannot escape notice. The case came up on appeal from an order of the chancellor allowing excep- tions to the answer. It was argued by eminent coUnsel, but it does not appear to have occurred to them, or to any memr ber of the court, that the bill was demurrable because it did not particularly set forth and describe the propetty which it alleged had been concealed or conveyed away in trust for the defendant under eolorable title, and the discovery of which, and its appropriation in satisfaction of the complainant's judgment, was prayed for. Mr. Justice Marcy, in delivering his judgment in this case, says: "Confining the jurisdiction of the court of chancery to the narrowest limits that have ever been assigned to it, power it certainly has, and exercises daily, of requiring answers to such allegations as the appe!- lant in this case has wholly omitted to answer, or has an- Bwered imperfectly." Page 623. This case was decided in December, 1829. �In Waddell v. Storms, uU supra, the practice in cases of creditors' bills is stated as follows : "Upon filing the bill an injunction is taken out, and served with the subpœna to an- swer, restraining the debtor from parting with any of Mb ��� �