.HIOKOX v. ELLIOTT. 13
Hrcxox v. Enmorr and others.
(Otrcait Court, D.'0reg0n. November 12, 1884.) ·
1. Lmrrlvrrons.
A suit in equity may be maintained to enforce a security for adebt, although
an action against the debtor directly upon the indebtedness is barred by lapse
of time: and for such purpose the debt exists, notwithstanding the lapse of
time.
2, Burr ro Snr Asrms A Cosvsrsncm.
A suit in equity to set aside an assignment or conveyance of property made
to hinder or delay creditors, should ordinarily be brought within the same time
after the right accrues as an action at law to recover possession of the same
property. · ‘ _
3. Psirrrss ro A Surr.
Where a trustee sues to recover possession of the trust property for the ben-
elit of the cestai que trust merely, or simply to enforce his right thereto against
third persons, such ceslui que trust is not a necessary party thereto ; and in a
· suit to set aside an assignment or conveyance made to hinder or delay credit-
ors, the grantor or assignor therein, if he has parted with all his right in the
property, is not a necessary party either.
4. Eqorranns A.SSIGNMENT—M.AINTENANCE. k
E. being a member of a railway construction Erm in Oregon, and defendant
in a suit brought there by his partners to dissolve said firm and determine the
_ rights of the parties therein, applied in California to W., a citizen of that state,
for a loan of money to aid him in asserting his rights in said suit, which W`.
agreed to and did advance on E.’s promise to repay the same, with interest, and
his assignment to H., in trust for W., of all his interest in said firm, as a se-
‘ curity for the repayment of said money and interest, in which suit there was
afterwards a decree given in favor of E. and against his partners for a sum of
J money; and at the time of making such assignment E. also gave W. the op-
tion t0 take a portion of any railway property or bonds that he might obtain
in such suit, in lieu of said money and interest. Held,.(1) that the assigm
ment of E.’s interest in the firm embraced the decree in his favor for thesum
of money which represented and stood for such interest, and that the trustee
I therein became in equity the assignee of said decree as soon as it came into
existence, and might maintain a suit to set aside speciticcovinous assignments
and conveyances by the defendant therein, made with intent to hinder and de-
lay the collection of the same; (2) thc option given W. is not involved in the
suit to enforce the decree, and therefore it is immaterial whether it is void for
champerty or not; (3) the contract for the loan and repayment of the money
was made and to be fulfilled in California, and therefore valid, whether cham—
. pertous or not, by the law of Oregon ; and the fact that seciiritywas taken on
property in Oregon for the performance of the contract, does not change its
character in this respect. » l i
Suit to Set Aside Conveyances to Hinder and Delay Creditors.
James K. Kelly and O. E. S. Wood, for plaintiff. J ‘
Thomas N. Strong, for J`oseph‘Holladay.
W. H. Holmes, for S. G. Elliott. J V * · ’ ‘ ` ‘ _
C. J. Macdougall, for Ben Holladay. S _ _
Denny, J. This suit is brought byGeorge C. Hickox, a citizen of
California, against Simon G. Elliott, Ben Holladay, Joseph Holladay, .
and William H. Eiiinger, citizens of Oregon,to‘subject certain prop-
erty, the legal title of which is now in Joseph Holladay, to the pay-
,ment of a. certain decree heretofore given by the supreme? court of
Oregon against Ben Holladay, on the groundthat said property was