· mcxox v. m.mo·r*r. 21
party defendant, without any averment as to his citizenship, it did
not appear that the court had jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case
was remanded, with leave to the plaintiffs to amend their bill gener-
ally, which they might do by alleging the citizenship of Kelshaw, if
it was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, or by omitting his
name from the hill. The general rule is that no person need be made
a party to a suit who has no interest in it, and against whom nothing _
is demanded. Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 153, 228-231; Kerr v. Watts, 6
Wheat. 550; Trceothiclc v.Aust~in, 4 Mason, 44; Bump Fraud. Conv.
548. This proposition is tacitly admitted by the counsel for Joseph
Holladay, but he contends that the transfers and conveyances in
question were, in fact, only mortgages, and therefore the legal title to
the property is still in these trustees, and they are necessary parties
to any suit in which that title is sought to be affected or the legal es-
tate disposed of. But, whatever the real fact may be as to the rela-
tions between Ben and Joseph Holladay concerning this property,
there is nothing in the fact stated in the bill to warrant any such
conclusion. On the contrary, the case made by the bill is one where
a debtor transfers and conveys to one creditor his property with in-
tent to thereby "hinder and delay" his other creditors, including the
plaintiff. True, it is not alleged that these transfers and convey-
ances were made with intent to defraud. Neither is it necessary to
the plaintiffs rights to the relief demanded that they should be. Un-
der the statute, it is sufficient if the conveyance is made with intent,
either "t0 hinder, delay, or defraud" creditors. These words are not
synonymous, and a conveyance made with either intent may be .
avoided by any "person so hindered, delayed, or defrauded." Wait,
Fraud. Conv. § 11; Bump, Fraud. Conv. 19. i
That these transfers and conveyances were made with intent to
hinder and delay the debtor’s creditors is directly alleged in the bill,
and is sufliciently shown by the facts, that the property included in
them is all that the debtor had, at least in this state; that its value
was largely in excess of the debt due Joseph Holladay, who is his ‘
brother; and that the debtor has since regularly received to his own
use a large portion of the rents and profits thereof.
And, lastly, is the contract upon which the money was advanced
by White to Elliott void for champerty? _
And, first, in the mouth of Elliott, at least, this may be considered J
anything but a meritorious defense. In 1874, when he was needy
and sore, pressed by rich and powerful parties, who sought to exclude
him from his share in an enterprise in which he appears to have
thought there were millions for him, he applied to White, the party
for whose benefit this suit is brought, for aid in this struggle, who
thereupon advanced him money to enable him to assert his rights in
court and maintain himself generally, upon no other security for its
repayment, with legal interest, than au assignment of his interest in
the firm of Ben Holladay & Co., then involved in litigation.