
    THOMAS J. OAKLEY v. DARIUS YOUNG AND OTHERS.
    1. in August, 1844, B. recovered a judgment against Y., who was then seized of certain lands. On the 6th of January, 1845, Y. conveyed an undivided half of said lands to L. On the 14tb of January, 1845, Y. confessed a judgment to L., upon which execution was immediately issued and levied upon all the right of Y. in the said lands. On the 9th of August, 1845, execution was issued on B/s judgment, and levied on all the said lands. An injunction was allowed, restraining the sheriff from selling, under the judgment confessed to L., the undivided half which had been conveyed to him prior to the entry of Ms judgment.
    2. The bill further charged that the judgment confessed to L. was collusively confessed and taken for the purpose of defeating the prior judgment, and of protecting Yds property from his creditors; and prayed that Bis judgment might be declared the prior lien on all the lands. A demurrer to the bill was overruled.
    The bill states that in August, 1844, John F. Bailey obtained a judgment against Darius Young, by confession, for «$10,000 j that Young was then possessed of block 11, in Jersey City, which was conveyed to him by the Associates of the Jersey Co., May 20th, 1844.
    That on the 6th of January, 1845, Young and his wife conveyed an undivided half of this block to Lathrop and Bartlett, for the consideration expressed of $6009; and on the same day-released to Lathrop and Bartlett the undivided half of the water right in front of the block.
    That Bailey assigned his judgment to the complainant on the 24th of February, 1845, for the consideration expressed of $5000; and covenanted that there was $5000 due, and interest and costs.
    That before taking the assignment, the complainant inquired of Young as to the said jndgment, and was told it was valid, and that the amount thereof was due Bailey ; and the complainant then told Young he was about to take an assignment of the judgment, to which Young made no objection, but solicited the complainant to delay issuing execution on the said judgment, which he did.
    That on the 14th of January, 1845, Young confessed a judgment to Lathrop and Bartlett for $6101.81, and on the 17th of June, 1845, another judgment for $8220.62.
    That when these judgments were confessed to Lathrop and Bartlett, they knew of the Bailey judgment, and connived and colluded with Young to have the said judgments confessed to them, in order to defeat the Bailey judgment, and to defraud the complainant of the benefit thereof. That the complainant, confiding in Young, deferred issuing execution for nearly a year from the date of the Bailey judgment.
    That on the 14th day of January, 1846, Lathrop and Bartlett issued and delivered to the sheriff an execution on the first of said judgments confessed to them; and on the 17th of June, 1845, delivered to the sheriff an execution on the other of said judgments. That on the 9th of August, 1845, the complainant delivered to the sheriff an execution on the Bailey judgment, which was levied on the whole of said blook and water right.
    That the sheriff, on the said executions in favor of Lathrop and Bartlett, levied on all the right, title and estate of Young in the said block and water right.
    That Lathrop and Bartlett caused the sheriff to make his levy in manner aforesaid, and thus to include as well the undivided half conveyed by Young and wife to them, by the deed of January 6th, 1845, as the other undivided half belonging to Young, for the purpose of defeating the lien of the complainant’s judgment on that half of the block and water right conveyed by Young and wife to them as aforesaid.
    That Lathrop and Bartlett, before the confession of the said judgments to them, became embarrassed and had not the means i.o advance the amount of the said judgments. That the amount of the said judgments is not due, and that they were taken for a larger sum than was due, for the purpose of covering the property of Young, and delaying and hindering other creditors; and that the said judgments, or a great portion thereof, have been paid by Young since they were confessed, and that they are kept on foot for the purpose of protecting the property of Young from the other creditors.
    That Lathrop and Bartlett now claim the right to sell under their said two executions, not only the moiety of the said Young in the said block and water right, but also the moiety of the block and of the water right conveyed to them, as aforesaid, by Young and wife, and that, by so doing, they will relieve that half from the lien of the complainant’s judgment.
    That Lathrop and Bartlett caused notice to be served that an application would be made to the Supreme Court, on the 7th of January, 1846, for a rule on Bailey to show cause why satisfaction of his judgment should not be entered, alleging that it had been fully paid, and for an order to stay all proceedings on the said judgment.
    That Young has, since the entry of the Bailey judgment, become insolvent.
    That the complainant believes that the object of the said application to .the Supreme Court is to delay and defeat a sale of the said property of Young, and of Lathrop and Bartlett, under the Bailey judgment, and to enable Lathrop and Bartlett first to sell said property on their said judgments, and to give an unjust advantage to their said judgments.
    That the whole amount of the said two judgments confessed to Lathrop and Bartlett was not due them, but, if really found due, that so much as shall be found due, and for which the said judgments were confessed, should, pro tanto, be considered as having been previously paid to Lathrop and Bartlett, on their said executions, by the transfer of the half of the said block and water right, at the consideration expressed in the deeds, and that Young, and Lathrop and Bartlett are bound by and estopped from denying the same, they having had full notice of the complainant’s judgment, and of its priority.
    
      That the sheriff has declared he will sell all the said block and the water rights in front thereof, first, on the said judgments of Lathrop and Bartlett, before selling on complainant’s said judgment.
    The bill prays that the said judgments confessed to Lathrop and Bartlett may be declared fraudulent and void, as against the complainant, or, if they be deemed valid, that an account may be taken of what is justly due thereon; and that the judgment of the complainant may be declared a lien on all the property Young was seized of at the entry of this judgment, and, particularly, on the half of said block and water right sold by Young and wife to Lathrop and Bartlett since the entry of the Bailey judgment;' and that the priority of the Bailey judgment, as a lien on all the real estate Young was seized of at the time of its rendition, may be established over the lien of the said judgments of Lathrop and Bartlett. And that the defendants may discover whether Lathrop and Bartlett, before the rendition of their said judgments, became embarrassed, and whether they advanced the amount of the respective bonds on which the said judgments were confessed, and may set forth the claims, and of what they consisted; of the account of Lathrop and Bartlett, which made up the sums mentioned in the conditions of the said bonds, and the credits to which Young is entitled on said account, and, specifically, of what they consisted, and all payments made by him to them, on account of his indebtedness to them, on account of said judgments; and that the amounts justly due from Young to them, if any, may be ascertained under the direction of this court; and that the sheriff may be restrained from selling any of the said real estate of Young, under the said executions of Lathrop and Bartlett, or that a sale of all the lands of Young may be made under the direction of this court, and the moneys arising therefrom be brought into this court, for distribution to and among such of the creditors as shall be entitled to the same, according to their legal priorities.
    An injunction was allowed, according to the prayer of the bill in that respect.
    ■ The defendants filed a general demurrer to the bill.
    The papers were submitted to the court without argument.
    
      
      E. R. V. Wright and Thos. W. James in support of the demurrer.
    
      W. Ualded, eontra.
    
   The Chancello®.

The demurrer will be overruled.

Order accordingly»  