unsatisfied, an outstanding execution is not necessary."

In many of the states the statute makes a lien of a judgment attach on the docketing of the judgment in the county where the real estate is situated, and this affords to a creditor seeking to set aside a fraudulent conveyance a sufficient lien to warrant the interference of equity in aid of such a lien, and to enable a creditor seeking to set aside a fraudulent conveyance to maintain his suit without issuing execution upon the judgment or procuring its return unsatisfied, if the action is brought for the purpose of removing an obstruction in the way of the creditor's legal remedy by way of execution and making his lien more available and efficient, and in aid of an execution thereafter to be issued.33 But the judgment must be shown to be an existing

32

31. Haswell v. Lincks, 87 N. Y. 637.

32. U. S.-Lazarus Jewelry Co. v. Steinhardt, 112 Fed. 614, 50 C. C. A. 393; Schofield v. Ute Coal., etc., Co., 92 Fed. 269; Bean v. Smith, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,174, 2 Mason, 252; McCalmont v. Lawrence, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,676, 1 Blatchf. 232.

Ill.-Wisconsin Granite Co. V. Gerrity, 144 Ill. 77, 33 N. E. 31.

Me.-Baxter v. Moses, 77 Me. 465, 1 Atl. 350, 52 Am. Rep. 783.

Minn.-Wadsworth V. Schisselbauer, 32 Minn. 84, 19 N. Y. 390.

Miss.-Fleming v. Grafton, 54 Miss. 79; Pulliam v. Taylor, 50 Miss. 551. Neb.-An attaching creditor acquires a lien which may be enforced, after recovery of judgment, without issuing an execution. Grandin v. First Nat. Bank (Neb. 1904), 98 N. W. 70; Westervelt v. Haggs, 61 Neb. 647, 85 N. W. 852, 54 L. R. A. 333; Coulson v. Galtsman, 1 Neb. (Unoff.), 502, 96 N. W. 349.

N. J.-Robert v. Hodges, 16 N. J. Eq. 299.

Wis.-Level Land Co. No. 3 V. Sivyer, 112 Wis. 442, 88 N. W. 317, issue and levy of execution necessary. But see Gilbert v. Stockman, 81 Wis. 602, 52 N. W. 1054, 29 Am. St. Rep. 922; Cornell v. Radway, 22 Wis. 260. Eng.-Mountford v. Taylor, 6 Ves.

Jr. 788.

33. Ala.-Dargan v. Waring, 11 Ala. 988, 46 Am. Dec. 234.

Ill.-Newman v. Willetts, 52 Ill. 98; Weightman v. Hatch, 17 Ill. 281; Andrews v. Donnerstag, 70 Ill. App. 236; Binnie v. Walker, 25 Ill. App. 82; Redden v. Potter, 16 Ill. App. 265.

Kan.-Metzger v. Burnett, 5 Kan.
App. 374, 48 Pac. 599.

Minn.-Peasley v. Ridgeway, 82
Minn. 288, 84 N. W. 1024; Sanlon ▼.
Murphy, 51 Minn. 536, 53 N. W. 799.
Miss.--Vasser V. Henderson,
Miss. 519, 90 Am. Dec. 351.

40

N. J.-Hall v. Nash, 58 N. J. L. 554, 43 Atl. 683.

Or.-Multnomah St. R. Co. v. Harris, 13 Or. 198, 9 Pac. 402.

35

lien, and if the lien no longer exists because of failure to issue an execution within the time prescribed by statute," or if the judgment cannot be revived, the judgment creditor cannot maintain the suit to set aside the conveyance of his debtor as fraudulent.

36

§ 47. Necessity of levy of execution.—Where a statute requires that execution shall have been issued upon a judgment before an action can be brought to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, whether the execution the must be actually levied upon the property depends in a given case upon whether a levy is necessary to create a lien.3 The statute in some instances provides that a levy must be made to preserve the lien of a judgment if the property sought to be reached is capable of being levied upon. But one who has a general judgment lien on the debtor's property need not levy an execution or procure its return unsatisfied to entitle him to maintain a bill to remove a fraudulent obstruction to the enforcement of his lien.38 And a levy is not necessary if it would be of no use, as where the judgment debtor never had the title to the premises sought to be reached."

37

8 48. Necessity of return of execution unsatisfied generally. -As a general rule the issuance of an execution, and a return

34. Evans v. Hill, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 464; Weis v. Tiernan, 91 Ill. 27; Chambers v. Jones, 72 Ill. 275; Newman v. Willetts, 52 Ill. 98; Fleming v. Grafton, 54 Miss. 79. But see Bennett v. Stout, 98 Ill. 47, as to conveyance from debtor to debtor's wife. 35. Mullen v. Hewitt, 103 Mo. 639, 15 S. W. 924.

36. Corey v. Greene, 51 Me. 114, levy is essential to transfer the debtor's title to the creditor; Hall v. Nash, 58 N. J. Eq. 554, 43 Atl. 683, delivery of execution to the sheriff binds the personalty of the defend

ant; Gilbert v. Stockman, 81 Wis. 602, 51 N. W. 1076, 52 N. W. 1045, 29 Am. St. Rep. 922. Compare Gullickson v. Madsen, 87 Wis. 19, 57 N. W. 965.

37. Spence v. Repass, 94 Va. 716, 27 S. E. 583.

38. Schofield v. Ute Coal, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 269, 34 C. C. A. 334.

39. Hamlen v. McGillicuddy, 62 Me. 268; Griffin v. Nitcher, 57 Me. 270; Des Brisay v. Hogan, 53 Me. 554; Corey v. Greene, 51 Me. 114; Fairbairn v. Middlemiss, 47 Mich. 372, 11 N. W. 203.

of "No property found," is a condition precedent to the right of a judgment creditor to maintain a suit in equity to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by the debtor, and to subject the land conveyed to the payment of the judgment, on the ground that he has no remedy at law for the collection of the debt, and especially so where it is sought to reach equitable interests of the debtor." In New York, where proceedings supplementary to

42

execution are held to be an equitable remedy and intended as a substitute for the creditors' bill as formerly used in chancery, the return unsatisfied of an execution issued after the judgment has ceased to be a lien is not such evidence of exhaustion of the legal remedy as will warrant such proceedings. Where it appears by proof aliunde that the judgment debtor has no property except that embraced in the alleged fraudulent conveyance which can be levied upon under execution, and that the issue of an execution would be useless and unavailing, it is not necessary, in an action to subject the property conveyed by him in fraud of creditors to sale under the judgment, to show that execution was first issued and returned nulla bona.43 The fact that the legal remedy of the creditor has been exhausted may be established otherwise than by the return of the execution unsatisfied." In some states the statute dispenses with the necessity

42. Importers', etc., Nat. Bank v. Quackenbush, 143 N. Y. 567, 38 N. E.

728.

V.

Reese, 3

43. Ga.-Thurmond Ga. 449, 46 Am. Dec. 440. Ind.-Towns v. Smith, 115 Ind. 480, 16 N. E. 811.

Iowa. O'Brien v. Stambach, 101 Iowa, 40, 69 N. W. 1133, 63 Am. St. Rep. 368; Smalley v. Mass, 72 Iowa, 171, 33 N. W. 619; Gordon v. Worthley, 48 Iowa, 429; Miller v. Dayton, 47 Iowa, 312.

Mo.-Turner v. Adams, 46 Mo. 95; Dodd v. Levy, 10 Mo. App. 121.

Or.-Hodges v. Silver Hill Min. Co., 9 Or. 200.

Wash.-Benham v. Ham, 5 Wash. 128, 31 Pac. 459, 34 Am. St. Rep. 851.

44. U. S.-Sage v. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 361, 8 Sup. Ct. 887, 31 L. Ed. 694; Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688, 25 L. Ed. 1004; In re H. G. Andrae Co., 117 Fed. 561; In re Pekin Plow Co., 112 Fed. 308, 50

C. C. A., 257. See Chicago, etc., Bridge Co. v. Anglo-American Packing, etc., Co., 46 Fed. 584; Consolidated Tank Line Co. v. Kansas City Varnish Co., 45 Fed. 7. Compare Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451, 13 Sup. Ct. 883, 37 L. Ed. 804.

Cal.-Blanc V. Paymaster Min. Co., 95 Cal. 524, 30 Pac. 765, 29 Am. St. Rep. 149.

Ind. T.-Springfield Grocery Co. v. Thomas, 3 Ind. T. 330, 58 S. W. 557.

Ky.-Locheim v. Eversole, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1031, 70 S. W. 661; Treadway v. Turner, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 949, 10 S. W. 816; Haskell v. Wynne, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 54.

Mo.-Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 592, 27 Am. St. Rep. 350; Kankakee Woolen Mill Co. v. Kampe, 38 Mo. App. 229.

S. C.-Miller v. Hughes, 33 S. C. 530, 12 S. E. 419; Austin v. Morris, 23 S. C. 393.

Wis. Oppenheimer v. Collins, 115 Wis. 283, 91 N. W. 690, 60 L. R. A.

of a return of the execution unsatisfied.45 Where the claim is purely equitable and such as a court of equity will take cognizance of in the first instance, a court of equity may proceed to grant such relief without requiring the creditor to first exhaust his remedy at law by judgment and return of execution thereon nulla bona.16

49. Rule where action is brought in aid of execution or legal remedy.-The return of an execution nulla bona is not necessary before bringing an action in equity which, while closely allied to a creditor's bill proper whose object is to discover assets and to reach equitable estates that cannot be reached by common law process, is clearly distinct therefrom, and the purpose of which is to procure the removal of obstructions that hinder the enforcement of the legal process. 47 Before bringing an action in the nature of a creditor's suit to reach property which in its nature is liable to sale under execution, but which has been fraudulently transferred so that an execution cannot be enforced, it is not necessary to have a return of the execution unsatisfied;48

406; Mueller v. Bruss, 112 Wis. 406, 88 N. W. 229.

45. Ala.-Henderson V. Farley Nat. Bank, 123 Ala. 547, 26 So. 226, 82 Am. St. Rep. 140.

Ky. Since the act of March 12, 1896, O'Kane v. Vinnedge, 108 Ky. 34, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1551, 55 S. W. 711; Locheim v. Eversole, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1031, 70 S. W. 661.

Me.-Baxter v. Moses, 77 Me. 465, 1 Atl. 350, 52 Am. St. Rep. 783, statute does not dispense with necessity for a return of execution unsatisfied.

Wis.-Ahlhauser v. Doud, 74 Wis. 400, 43 N. W. 169, a judgment creditor by levy acquires a lien sufficient to sustain an action in equity.

46. Moore v. Baker, 34 Fed. 1; McMakin v. Shelton, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 154.

Fla.-Logan v. Logan, 22 Fla. 561, 1 Am. St. Rep. 212.

Ga. Stephens v. Beal, 4 Ga. 319. Ill. Scott v. Aultman Co., 211 Ill. 612, 71 N. E. 1112, 103 Am. St. Rep. 215, aff'g 113 Ill. App. 581; French v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 79 III. App. 110; Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 56 Ill. App. 517; Quinn v. People, 45