14 .,:22ZY` p ·mmnma~sn;rnmron·1·nn.,, _
5. SAME-~A.T'I.'ACKINGYCREDITOR Enrrrnnn ro Bmnnrrr.
Creditors attacking a deed of assignment and unearthing a fraud intended
to be consummated thereby, are entitled to the rewards of their vigilance.
6. SAME-—VIRGINIA Bunn. .
Wallace v. Trcakle, 27 Grat. 479, followed as to such attacking creditors.
ln Equity. A
Tunstall ot Thom, for complainants and petitioners.
W. G. Elliott and Borlanol at Brooke, for defendants.
Wm. H. White, for trustee.
Hoenns, J. The defendant firm, Hofheimer, Son & Co., of Norfolk, ’
Virginia, executed a deed of assignment, dated the twenty—third of July,
1883, to Theodore S. Garnett as trustee. They conveyed a stock of
goods in a wholesale shoe business which they had been conducting in
a double tenement, Nos. 84 and 86 Water street. They conveyed not
only the goods then in their building, but their books, accounts, and
choses in action to this trustee, who is also a defendant in this suit.
The assignment was for the beneht-—First, of certain persons described
. as creditors of the firm, enumerated in Schedule A annexed to the
deed, who were to be paid in full, and whose claims aggregate $88,-
714; and, second, of another set of creditors enumerated in Schedule
B, whose claims aggregate $34,320, and who were to be paid after
the creditors of Class A had been satisfied. The creditors upon Sched-
ule A, and the debts acknowledged by the deed to be due them re-
spectively, were as follows:
[ Henshaw &Co., - - · ' · $25,844 09
Burruss, Son & Co., --··-- 6,250 00
The Exchange Nat. Bank of Norfolk, · - - 10,000 00
Ottenburg Bros., - · · - - · 3,796 54
Nathan Metzger, -·-- · - - 700 00
A. E. Jacobs, · - · • - - 100 00
_ Isaac Gutman, ------- 15,624 18
Isaac Moritz, --·· , - - 12,500 00
Henrietta Samuels, -···· , · 9,400 00
L. W. Roberts, · · - _ - · 4,500 00
V $88.714 81
The property which was conveyed by the deed has been sold and
proceeds collected, and has produced in cash the sum of $66,307.
No other property was conveyed by this deed, and the deed did not
purport to convey any other than the goods and choses in action that
have been mentioned. The deed contained no clause for the con-
tingent benent of any other creditors than those enumerated in Sched-
ules A and B. It made no provision for a large number of creditors
who were not embraced in either schedule; none for the benefit of
the three complainants, or the three petitioners in the suit, whose
claims aggregate about $32,900, and are evidenced- by negotiable
notes. Fraud is not apparent on the face of the deed. It is con-
ceded that the claims of all the creditors named in the two sched-