
    Seymour against Hazard.
    
      March 3.
    A WRIT of ne exeat república cannot be granted for a debt due and recoverable at law. It is applied only to equitable demands. And it seems that it must not only be an equitable demand, but one in the nature of a debt actually due.
    THE bill, which was for a ne exeat, and sworn to, March 3, 1814, stated, that the defendant, on the 22d of October, 1813, purchased of the plaintiff a house and lot of ground in Hillsdale, for 3,300 dollars, and for which he gave the plaintiff seven promissory notes, and a mortgage on the premises to secure the payment; that possession of the premises was immediately given to the defendant; that one of the notes would become due on the 15 th of April next; that on the 20th of January last, the defendant clandestinely left the premises, having pnt another person, a poor man, in possession ; that the defendant declared that he was about to remove out of the state, and did not mean to pay the notes. It was also stated, that the defendant owed the plaintiff more than thirty dollars, and secreted himself to avoid the process of law issued for the recovery of that sum. The plaintiff prayed a writ of ne exeat, that the defendant be compelled to give security, in the sum of 7,000 dollars, not to leave the state.
    
      E. Williams, for the plaintiff.
   The Chancellor.

The writ of ne exeat cannot be granted for a debt due and recoverable at law. As a general rule, it is applicable only to equitable demands. (Dicken’s Rep. 82. 154. 503. 609. Amb. 75. 2 Atk. 210. 10 Vesey, jun. 165.)

This objection applies equally to the debt of thirty dollars as to the demand on the notes; and there is a further objection to granting the writ, as it respects the notes, that none of them appear to be due; and there must be not only an equitable demand, but one in the nature of a debt actually due. (Cook v. Ravie, 6 Vesey, jun. 283.) 
      
      
         Vide Shaftoe v. Shaftoe, (7 Vesey, jun. 171.) Jones v. Sampson, (8 Vesey, jun. 593, 594.) De Mandeville v. De Mandeville, (10 Vesey, jun. 63.) Haffey v. Haffey, (10 Vesey, jun, 261.)
     