‘ FRANKENTHAL Q!. GILBERT.  
plainant the right in the first instance to bring his suit in a court of
equity to compel Baker, as a co-surety, to pay his contributive share of
the indebtedness of all the sureties to the city. If the complainant,
without having brought a suit at law against Baker, has the right to in-
stitute an original proceeding in a court of equity to enforce the payment
by Baker of his alleged contributive share of the liability which all the
sureties have incurred, then it must follow that he has the right in the
same proceeding, upon alleging and showing that he cannot otherwise
collect his demand against his co-surety, to pursue the property of that
co-surety which it is alleged has been fraudulently conveyed to a third
party, who is made a defendant in the suit. That part of the relief
sought which relates to the application of certain property to the satis-
faction of the complainant’s demand because of the alleged insolvency of
Baker, may be said to be incidental to the principal recovery prayed in
the bill; and, as a court of equity has jurisdiction to grant the principal
relief asked, without reference to the fact that a court of law may have
concurrent jurisdiction, it may proceed, upon suitable allegations made,
to dispose of the whole controversy. ,
From what has been said, it seems to the court quite apparent that
there is a well-founded distinction between a suit of the nature of this--
which is one to determine the sum which the defendant Robert A. Baker
ought to pay his co-surety, and to enforce the payment thereof-—and a.
creditors’ bill brought to enforce a liability already established in a suit
at law. As bearing on the question decided, see Mason v. Piemm, 63
Wis. 239, 23 N. _W. Rep. 119, and Smith v. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 183.
Demurrer overruled, with leave to the defendants to answer the bill.
FRANKENTHAL et al. v. GILBERT et al.
(Uircuit Court, S. D. ‘Mia.sissippi, W D. January Term, 1888.)
1. Fnaununnxwr C0NvnYANcms—TAKrNe Trrnm m WIFE,E Num —Aenunumn*1·
wrrn Cnnnrrorzs.
An insolvent trader sold the whole of his estate to certain of his creditors
for the amount of their debts, and certain others which they assumed, the total
· exceeding the value of the estate. The creditors immediately took posses-
sion, and managed the business for a few days, after which one of their num-
ber bought out the others, and sold the estate to the insolvent’s wife, for cash
and promissory notes. She then went into possession, under her own sign,
employed her husband, but without salary, with others as assistants, and
eventually paid off the notes. Held, that although the wife was not shown to
have any separate estate prior to the purchase by her, there was no fraud.
2. Husnarm mn WI¥‘E—LIABILITY or WIFE’B Es*rA·r1a:—D1a:B*rs on HUBBAND—·
Dncniunvrrous ro Comrmzcur. Acmncr.
In a creditors' suit against an insolvent’s wife to subject property in her
hands to the payment of their debts, statements of the husband as to his finan-
cial condition made at periods antecedent to his insolvency, to a commercial
agency, cannot defeat the rights of the wife, unless participated in by her.
, In Equity. I Creditors’ bill. V -