
    Silas F. Trotter vs. Eliza White, Administratrix of James White, deceased.
    Under the foreign attachment law, (How. & Hutch. 520, § 63,) where there is a bill pending in equity against a non-resident defendant, who is indebted to the complainant, and a home defendant who has effects in his hands of the non-resident, upon the affidavit of the absence of the non-resident and of the indebtedness, the court may make an order requiring the home defendant to give security to have the property in his hands forthcoming, to abide the ultimate decree of the court; or in default thereof that the property shall be delivered to the complainant upon his giving like security.
    And it seems that if the effects in the hands of the home defendant are claimed by him as his own, yet if the bill alleges them to be the property of the non-resident, claimed by the home defendant under a fraudulent assignment or sale from the non-resident, the attachment will lie, and the same relief may be extended as if the home defendant laid no claim to the effects in his hands.
    The complainant, in a foreign attachment bill,' may, at the time of filing the hill, upon a sufficient and proper showing for it, obtain an injunction against the transfer or removal of the effects in the home-defendant’s hands.
    Where administration is taken out in another state, and the administrator there, in the course of administration, takes notes payable to himself as administrator, he may maintain a bill in his own name, in the courts of this state, to enforce their collection ; and it will not make any difference that he styles himself, in such bill, administrator.
    On appeal from the district chancery court at Holly Springs; Hon. Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor.
    
      Eliza White, describing herself as administratrix of James White, deceased, of Washington county, Virginia, alleges in her bill in substance, that Joseph Trotter, a non-resident, is indebted to her in about the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, on notes payable to her, to secure which amount he executed to her in the state of Louisiana, a mortgage on upwards of fifty slaves, and between seventeen and eighteen hundred acres of land, on which he had previously executed a mortgage, to secure a debt of comparatively small amount; that after this, Trotter and his son, Silas F. Trotter, and others, fraudulently combined to defeat complainant in the collection of her debt, and with this view procured a colorable and fraudulent sale to be made of the mortgaged slaves, to Silas F. Trotter, who, under this pretended sale, took possession of the slaves, and now holds them in Tunica county, within the jurisdiction of the court; that this sale was fraudulent and void; and the slaves bound for complainant’s debt under her mortgage; that under whatever pretext Silas F. Trotter holds the slaves, they are liable to complainant’s debt, and that she is fearful they will be removed beyond the limits of the state, and that she will be defeated in the collection of her debt, unless she can obtain the aid of a court of chancery; an attachment and injunction are prayed for. The bill was sworn to by an agent of the complainant.
    An attachment and injunction were granted and executed on Silas F. Trotter.
    At the return term of the writs, the vice-chancery court discharged the original attachment and injunction; but, on the affidavit of the complainant’s agent of the absence from the state of Joseph Trotter, and on her motion the court, “ to insure the safety of the slaves, the subject of litigation in the cause, to abide the future orders or decrees of the court, adjudged and ordered that the sheriff of Tunica county do take or hold said slaves in his possession and custody, and them safely keep until the further order of this court, unless the said Silas F. Trotter will execute to the complainant bond in the penally of thirty thousand "dollars, with unquestionable security, to be approved by the clerk and master of this court, with condition to keep said slaves, in complainant’s bill mentioned, and.on which the attachment aforesaid was levied, within the juriádiction of this court, and to have them forthcoming to abide the future orders and final decree of this court in the premises, upon the execution of which bond by the said Silas F. Trotter, the said sheriff of 'Tunica county shall deliver said slaves to him; but should the said Silas F. Trotter refuse or fail within thirty days from this time to execute bond, with security as aforesaid, then upon the execution by complainant to the said Silas F. Trotter, of a bond in the like sum or penalty of thirty thousand dollars, conditioned to pay and satisfy to said Silas F. Trotter, all damages which may accrue to him from this order, should it be decided that said slaves were not liable to the debt so due complainant, from the said Joseph Trotter, and also to keep said slaves within the jurisdiction of this court, and have them forthcoming to abide its future orders and final decrees in the premises, the said sheriff of Tunica county will deliver said slaves to the complainant, or her duly authorized agent; and should neither of said parties execute bond as aforesaid, then the said sheriff of Tunica county will retain and keep possession and custody of the said slaves, and hold them subject to the future order and decree of this court.”
    Silas F. Trotter appealed from this order.
    
      C. iScoii, for appellant.
    1. As administratrix the complainant could not maintain this bill, without letters in this state.
    2. The original- attachment was improvidently issued at the filing of the bill. 1 S. & M. 441.
    3. The case made out by the bill is not included in the stat- ' ute; effects of the non-resident may be attached ; here distinct and different relief must be granted, a fraudulent sale be set aside, and other steps taken before it can be determined whether effects of the non-resident are in the home-resident’s hands; this was not contemplated by the statute. How. & Hutch. 520.
    4. The bill made out no case for an injunction. 2 Story’s Eq. 959, et seq.
    
      5. The case stated in the bill falls under the head of the general jurisdiction of a court of equity, and not under the jurisdiction conferred by the statute.
    
      Lucas, Watson, and Clapp,
    
    Insisted that the order was properly granted; they cited Corrib stock v. Rayford, 1 S. & M. 441; Gasget v. Scott, 9 Yerg. 246; Gibson v. White, 3 Munf. 94; Kelso v. Blackburn, 3 Leigh, 299.
   Mr. Justice Thachek

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the district chancery court at Holly Springs.

Eliza White filed her bill, alleging that Joseph Trotter, a non-resident, was indebted to her in a large sum ; that he secured the debt by a mortgage in Louisiana upon a tract of land, and numerous slaves, which property he had previously encumbered by another mortgage to secure another debt of a smaller amount; that the slaves, by means of a fraudulent and void sale in Louisiana, came into the possession of Silas F. Trotter, a resident of this state, and are now within the jurisdiction of this court; and that she is fearful that they will be removed from this state. Upon filing the bill, an injunction and attachment were procured and issued. At the return term of process upon the bill, which had been executed upon Silas F. Trotter, an order was made discharging the attachment, but an affidavit having been filed as to the non-residence of Joseph Trotter and other defendants, a further order was made to secure the property to answer the final decree, in which it was permitted to either Silas F. Trotter or the complainant, upon executing a required bond, to take and keep possession of the slaves in the mean time, the privilege being first accorded to Silas F. Trotter.

The defendant below has sued out this writ of error, and, therefore, we are only required to pronounce upon the propriety of the order made to secure the property pending litigation, as by that order alone can he claim to have been prejudiced.

The statute H. & H. 520, § 63, by virtue of which this order was made, authorizes it upon certain conditions. The first condition is, that a suit must have been - commenced “ for relief in equity.” The statute does not restrict the remedy to secure the property to suits commenced for any particular or peculiar relief in equity, but allows it in all proper suits in equity where from their nature it is applicable and fit. In this case, the bill, upon its face, shows a sufficient ground for equitable interposition and the security of the property is essential to effectual relief ultimately. In the next place, the statute requires the existence of a non-resident defendant, and, as to the character of the suit, others within the state having effects of the absent defendant. Here, the bill charges that the sale of the property in Louisiana to Silas F. Trotter was fraudulent and void, and hence alleges that the title has never, in point of law, passed from Joseph Trotter, but still remains in him. No appearance of the absent defendants was made, or security entered by them for performing decrees, but affidavit was duly made of their non-residence, and process had been served upon Silas F. Trotter, the defendant in this state. All things to be done or shown by the requisitions of the statute and according to law, appear by the bill and proceedings. Hence we cannot see what objection can reasonably be taken to this order, it having been granted in a case in all respects according with the statute. Any argument upon the hardship of the case or the violence of the remedy is out of place, and, in fact, the statute but carries out a leading principle of equity jurisdiction, which permits and requires such a tribunal to ensure the presence of property, in a proper case, to respond its concluding decrees. Besides, as to the question of the propriety of such an order, this court has said, in Comstock et al. v. Rayford et al. 1 S. & M. 442, which was a case in most respects similar to the present, that, “ when the home defendant has been served with process, and at the return term an affidavit is made as to the absence of the other defendant, the court may there make an order for the safe keeping of the effects, and require surety for their production to answer the decree, or may direct them to be delivered to the complainant upon his giving surety for the return.” Upon principle, as well as upon the authority of our own decisions, this order was legitimately made.

In the case of Comstock et al. v. Rayford et al., we intimated that a party had a right to obtain an injunction, at the time of the bill filed, upon a proper case, to prevent the transfer or removal of the property involved. We take this occasion to express decisively the opinion that such an exercise of power in. equity, upon a sufficient and proper showing for it, would be in keeping with the true end and aim of equitable jurisdiction, because, without it, proper and full relief-might be entirely defeated in some cases.

The objection taken, in the present case, that the suit has been instituted by Eliza White, as administratrix, without having shown that letters of administration have been procured by her in this state, cannot avail. The notes, evidencing the debt, were made payable to her as administratrix, and she can prosecute the suit as in her own name.

Decree affirmed.  