
    *Bank of the United States v. C. Schultz.
    íáCcond injunction in the same cause upon new matter can not be allowed, if the matter subsisted when the first bill was filed.
    Court of equity will not interfere to turn plaintiff in execution at law upon a fund evidently not liable to satisfy his debt.
    Party can not travel out of the matter alleged in his bill to make a ground of relief.
    This was an original bill filed in the Supreme Court of Hamilton county, and is between the same parties, and relates to the same transaction, and hadthesame object with that reported in 2 Ohio, 471.
    In October', 1820, the defendant, Schultz, obtained a judgment against the Bank of Cincinnati, which operated as a lien upon the real estate of the bank, from the 28th day of August of that year. Execution was immediately sued out and levied upon real estate, which was valued at a sum sufficient to satisfy the debt, at two-thirds of .the valuation. Executions to effect a sale were prosecuted, with unremitting diligence, to August, 1824, when the first valuation having, been set aside and a new one made, the propert}1levied on was sold for a small sum, leaving a large balance due upon the judgment. An alias fi.fa. was then sued out, and levied upon property, sold and conveyed to the Bank of the United States, in October, 1820. The bank filed a bill and obtained an injunction to stay the sale, upon the ground that the property was not subject to the lien of the judgment. This injunction being dissolved, and the bill dismissed upon a final hearing, Schultz was again proceeding to sell the property upon execution, when the bank filed this bill and obtained a second injunction on the ground of a new equity, which was founded on an allegation that subsequent to the sale and conveyance of the property in question to the complainants, the Cincinnati Bank owned lot 155, which ought to be first subjected to the payment of Schultz’ judgment. The defendant answered and alleged, that the lot 155 had been so disposed of that it could not now be subjected to his judgment, and denying the equity of the bill. A statement of facts was agreed between the parties, from which it appeared that the lot 155 had been taken in execution as the property of the Bank of Cincinnati, upon a judgment rendered against it in August, 1821, and sold in virtue of the levy in October, 1822. The statement embraced several other pieces of property, but it is not material to the point decided to enumerate them. The cause was adjourned here foi decision, from Hamilton countv
    ^Caswell and Fox,’ for complainants.
    Hammond and Storer, for defendants.
   By the Court :

When a second bill is filed to obtain a second injunction, in relation to the same transaction, and between the same parties, it is not enough to allege new ground of equity, not suggested in the former bill. It must be shown that the new matter alleged did not exist at the time the first bill was filed, or that, if it existed, it was unknown to the complainants. If this rule were not enforced, there might be no end to litigation. A bill might be filed and an injunction obtained in succession, upon separate and distinct grounds, every one of which ought to have been included in the first bill. It is unnecessary to point out the inconvenience, vexation, and injustice of such a practice.

In this case, the new ground of equity stated in the bill existed when the first bill was filed, and existed in such manner as to make it the duty of the complainants to be conversant with it. No allegation is made that they were ignorant of it. For this reason the new bill ought not to be sustained.

Again : The lot No. 155, which, it is charged, the respondent must first resort to, it appears, has been seized in execution, and legally sold under a subsequent judgment. As Schultz did not set aside his levy under the act of 1822, he has, according to the decision of this court, lost his lien against a subsequent judgment creditor. Were we to turn him round to pursue lot No. 155, it would be with a perfect knowledge that his pursuit would be unavailing. This, a court of equity would never do. The property from which it is sought to remove the levy, is liable to the satisfaction of the judgment; that to which we are asked to transfer it is not. On this ground the prayer of the bill must be refused.

In the agreed case, facts are stated as to other property not specified in the bill. The respondent’s counsel object to an inves tigation with respect to any other property than that stated in the bill. We are of opinion that this objection is well taken. It is, therefore, unnecessary to inquire into anything further than the rights of the parties as to lot 155. The injunction is dissolved, and the bill dismissed.  