l7t7|0 FEDERAL REFOBIB^ �rS^fitutes as to its origin. 2 Ee*v;. St. 173-4. The statute is jUpdoubtedly sufficient to sustain ail the argument that was presented in support of the effect of such a suit; but, as I desire to refer to cases prior to that time, when the Revised Statutes went into operation, I will advert briefly to the earlier history of this jurisdiction. �"The power o| the court of chancery to aid in removing fraudulent impediments in thewayof levying on the personal property liable to execution, or selling the> teal estate of his debtor, is an old-established ground of jurisdiction, whioh is not in question here. �"The bill in those cases was auxiliary to the carrying into effect the process of the law courts, and differed from our creditors' suit, now under consideration, in this : that in the suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land, so as to give effect to a judgment, the bill need not allege anything more than the recovery of the judgment ; and where it was to remove an obstruction affeeting movable property, it was only requisite to allege an execution issued to the county where the property was situated; while in the creditor's hil\, against equitable interests and things in action, the crediter must show the issuing of an execution, and its reg- ular retum unsatisfied. �"In the case of Spacl,er v. Hadden, 5 J. G. E. 280, Chaneellor Kent, in 1821, suetained a creditor's suit of the description now in use against moneys in the hands of Hadden, trans- ferred to him by the debtor, — the transfer being fraudulent against creditors. This decree was affirmed by the court of errors in November, 1822. 20 John. 554. A majority of the court, with Chief Justice Spencer and Mr. Justice Wood- worth, (the latter delivered the prevailing opinion,) ooncurred in holding that the case was one of acknowledged equitable cognizance, and the reasoning of the judge is applicable as well to the case of funds being in the debtor's hands as to the case decided. �"It is true that in Donavan t. Fin, Hopk. 69-77, decided in November, 1823, the chancelier omitted to follow the resuit of the decision in Hadden v. Spader, and viewed the ��� �
