Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/40

 26 FEDERAL REPORTER. �issued. They cannot recover the possession of the property attached from the sherifE—the possession is rightfully in him — nor can they maintain tres- pass againat him, for the reason that the execution, being regular on its face, is his justification. If the property be sold under the execution and delivered to purchasers, an order of sale under their attachment will be fruitless ; an action against the purchaser, if insolvent, will afford no redress, and if solvent will impose burdens and expanses upon thera for which no compensation can be made. In short, there is no adequate remedy, and therefore the case is a pro- per one for an injunetion." �It is true, in that case the execution was declared to be void, while here it is ohly Voidable. But that only fumishes an additional ground for independeht equitable interference, as the equity asserted by the complainahts, while it is siifBcient, if maintained, to avoid the levy of the executioh as against their claim, could not be established and vindicated in any other mode than by a bill in chancery. The grounds, therefore, for maintaining the injunetion in the present case are stronger than in the case just cited. �In the case of Watson v. Sntherland, 5 Wall. 74, the supreme court of the" United States, speaking by Mr. Justice Davis, sustained an injunctioh to prevent a sale under an execution of goods levied on as the property of the judgment debtor, at the suit of a third person claiming title to them by virtue of a prior purchase from the judgment debtor, -which sale the plaintiff in the execution charged to be fraudulent and void, the court deciding the question of fraud in favor of the complainant in equity, holding that the recovery of damages in an action at lavr was not an adequate remedy for the loss arising from the destruction of his business. It does not appeair in the report of that case -whether an action of replevin for the recovery of the possession of the goods themselves would lie. But in either view the rule laid down is certainly broad enough to cover the present case. �(3) This brings us to a consideration of the complamanfs equity, which is denied. Its existence depends entirely upon whether, upon final hearing, he will be able to establish by proof the fraud of which he complains. If it be true that, by the fraudulent misrepresenta- tions alleged, the complainants were induced to sell to Pierce goods on credit, then the arrangement between Sharpe and Pierce — by which the former procured $25,Q00 of notes falling due at short in- tervais, with warrant of attorney attached, authorizing judgments by confession, and the subsequent entry of judgments, and issue and levy of executions thereon, seizing and selling the stock of goods, a large part of which consisted of merchandise sold by the complain- ��� �