
    John F. Voorhees vs. James A. Reford and Wife and others.
    When a bill is filed by a judgment creditor against Ms debtor, not for the sole purpose of having a conveyance alleged to be fraudulent set aside as against creditors, but also prays that in case the conveyance should not be decreed fraudulent, that the complainant’s judgment should be declared an encumbrance on the property in the hands of the alienee, should this relief be granted the suit will enure to the benefit of the complainant alone, and not to the benefit of other creditors of the defendant.
    Where the design of a creditor’s bill is to declare the property of a defendant subject to the lien of any of the attaching or judgment creditors, all the creditors having liens upon the property are entitled to be heard and have their liens protected.
    A party who has obtained a judgment before the filing of a bill by one creditor to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent should be made a party to that suit, and cannot be deprived of his equitable rights by the wilful or negligent omission of the complainant in that suit to make him a party.
    The original bill in this cause was filed December 13th, 1860, by George Cramer and Edwin Pierson against Reford and wife, as judgment creditors of Reford, to set aside a post-nuptial settlement, made by Reford prior to the contracting of the debt to complainant. Afterwards, on the 19th of March, 1861, George S. Corwin, another judgment creditor of Reford, filed a bill to avoid the same settlement.
    After the filing of the original bill of Cramer and Pierson, and before the filing of Corwin’s bill, John F. Voorhees recovered a judgment against Reford, and not having been made a party to Corwin’s bill, he afterwards, on the 21th of April, 1861, filed a supplemental bill, in the nature of a cross-bill, against the complainants and defendants in the two preceding suits, the object of which was to consolidate those suits, and to permit Voorhees to participate in them and enforce the lien of his judgment against the property in controversy in those suits.
    To this bill of Voorhees, the defendant Reford filed a general demurrer.
    
      Mr. McDonald, in support of the demurrer.
    The execution creditors of Reford all became his creditors after the title passed.
    The bill must allege such badges of fraud as would set aside the deed in equity.
    The charges are not properly made. It is not sufficient to refer to the charges in the former bills, and affirm their truth.
    There are too many parties; Reford and wife are the only proper defendants.
    
      Mr. Pitney, contra.
    This is a supplemental bill in the nature of a cross-bill. The object of the bill is to enable complainant to participate in suits now pending, and to consolidate those suits.
    If the former bills do not disclose an equitable case we have no standing.
    Cramer and Pierson’s bill is specific, sets out good ground of equity, and has been answered and not demurred to.
    When a deed is found fraudulent as against any creditor, it is so as against all creditors who may come before the court. Story's Eq. Jur., § 355, 365; Ede v. Knowles, 2 Young & Coll's Ch. 172-8; Townsend v. Westacott, 2 Beav. 345; Scarff v. Soulby, 16 Simons 481; Whittington v. Jennings, 6 Simons 493; Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. R. 500; Cook v. Johnson, 1 Beasley 51; Weeks v. Clarke, 8 Paige 160.
    How is Voorhees to get in — not by petition nor by independent bill.
    Two decrees to sell the same property are not to be favored in equity. Crane v. Brigham, 3 Stock. 31.
    Yoorhees is clearly entitled to have his rights protected. His remedy is by supplemental bill in the nature of a cross-bill.
    A defendant cannot demur for the misjoinder of other persons as codefendants. Whitbeck v. Edgar, 4 Sandf. Ch. 427, 433; affirmed in 2 Barb. Ch. R. 106.
    A new defendant cannot be added to a suit by a petition; it must be by supplemental bill. Foster v. Deacon, 6 Madd. 59; Wilder v. Keen, 3 Paige 164; Sedgwick v. Cleaveland, 7 Paige 200; Watt v. Crawford, 11 Paige 470; Dacres v. Williams, 1 Simons 5. This case shows that if a party sould be got in by petition he is not deprived of his remedy by bill. Story’s Eq. Pl., § 365, 342, 390-8; 1 Daniels’ Ch. Pr. 328; 2 Ibid. 1348; 3 Ibid. 1410, 1663-5, 1673, 1681-3; 2, Ibid 1745-7.
    When a bill is filed to set aside a conveyance of land as fraudulent, complainant must make all judgment creditors of the fraudulent debtor parties, because he goes on the ground that the title is still in the debtor. Williams and Riley v. Mitchenor, 3 Stock. 520; Harrison v. Stewartson, 2 Hare 284; 1 Daniels’ Ch. Pr. 284; Ponsonby v. Ponsonby, 2 Hage 201; Grace v. Terrington, 2 Collier 53; Green v. Edwards, 9 Beav. 22; Glasbrook v. Gilbert, Ibid 492; Clark v. Hall, 8 Beav. 395; Young v. Evorest, 1 Russ. & M. 426; Wakeman v. Grover, 4 Paige 32.
    In filing supplemental bill, it is not necessary to repeat at length all the contents of the original bill. It is enough to refer to them, and affirm that they are true. Repeating the whole is mere supererogation.
    If the bill is defective in that particular it is amendable.
    
      Mr. McDonald, in reply, cited 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 1.
   The Chancellor.

The original bill filed by Cramer and Pierson-is not a creditor’s bill, which enures to the benefit of all the creditors of Reford, nor is the bill for the sole purpose of having the conveyance from Reford and wife declared fraudulent as against creditors. Such bill may enure for the benefit not only of all subsequent encumbrancers but of all other creditors. Cook v. Johnson, 1 Beasley 51.

But the bill also prays, in case the conveyance should not be deemed fraudulent, that the complainant’s judgment be declared an encumbrance on the property in the hands of the alienee. Should this relief be granted, the suit will enure to the benefit of Cramer and Pierson alone. The residue of the property would remain under the control of the alienee.

All the creditors having liens upon the property are entitled to be heard and to have their liens protected, where the design of the bill is to declare the property subject to the lien of any of the attaching or judgment creditors. Williams v. Mitchenor, 3 Stock. 520.

The complainant’s judgment was recovered after the hill of Cramer and Pierson was filed. His claim must be brought before the court either by original bill or by supplemental bill. He is clearly entitled in equity, in one form or the other, to have his rights protected.

The bill of Corwin was filed after Voorhees had obtained his judgment. Voorhees should properly have been made a party to that bill, but he cannot be deprived of his equitable rights by the wilful or negligent omission of the complainant in that suit.

Ho exception is taken to the form of the proceeding. The demurrer is solely for want of equity. The defendant consents, and desires that the suits should be united, or that the rights of the parties be settled by one controversy.

The demurrer is overruled.

Vide Cramer v. Reford, 2 C. E. Gr., 367.  