Carver v. Peck

• Decision Date: 28 June 1881
• Citation: 131 Mass. 291
• Parties: John Carver v. Lewin A. Peck
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

131 Mass. 291

John Carver v. Lewin A. Peck

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 28, 1881

Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed September 27, 1879, alleging that the defendant owed the plaintiff $ 248.40, for use and occupation of a dwelling-house and land in Boston; that on July 16 1878, certain letters patent of the United States were granted to the defendant, which he still owned; that the patent was of great value; that the defendant had no other visible property which could be applied to his indebtedness and refused to apply this patent, or any of the proceeds thereof, to the payment of that indebtedness; and that the plaintiff had not a plain, adequate or sufficient remedy at law. The prayer of the bill was that the defendant be ordered to apply the interest which he had in the patent to the payment of the debt due the plaintiff; for an injunction; and for general relief.

The defendant demurred to the bill, assigning as grounds of demurrer: 1. That the plaintiff had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. 2. Want of equity.

At the hearing, the demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed with costs; and the plaintiff appealed to the full court.

Decree affirmed.

J. H Bradley & J. W. O'Brien, for the defendant.

E. C. Gilman, for the plaintiff.

OPINION

Gray, C. J.

As the process of a court of chancery operates in personam, it is within the power of such a court, having jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, to compel or restrain a conveyance of his interest in personal property, or even in real estate, although the property or estate is itself outside the territory to which the jurisdiction of the court is limited. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch 148, 158-160. Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen 545, and 7 Allen 57.

The incorporeal and intangible right of an inventor or an author in a patent or a copyright cannot be taken on execution at law; and a general assignment of his property under a bankrupt or insolvent act will either by its own force pass this right to the assignee in bankruptcy or insolvency, or will at least entitle the latter by proper proceedings to compel the debtor to convey it to him for the benefit of creditors. Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. 528. Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447. Hesse v. Stevenson, 3 B. & P. 565. Longman v. Tripp, 2 N. R. 67. Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ. 385, 392. Ashcroft v. Walworth, 1 Holmes C. C. 152. Murray v. Ager, 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1311.

But, assuming all this, the bill now before us does not set forth a case which entitles the plaintiff to relief. The nature of the debt alleged to be due to him from the defendant does not justify the interposition of a court of equity, because it is a purely legal debt, upon which the plaintiff may sue at law. The sole ground on which he seeks to maintain his bill is that the defendant owns a patent right which he refuses to apply to the payment of the plaintiffs' debt, and has no other visible property that can be so applied.

The plaintiff cannot maintain his bill under the general jurisdiction of this court in equity, because he does not show that he has recovered judgment upon his debt; for in order to charge property in equity with the payment of a legal debt, the plaintiff must show that he has taken all the steps which would be prerequisite to obtaining an execution at law. Story Eq. Jur. § 1216 b. Smith v. Hurst, 10 Hare 30. M'Dermutt v. Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 687. Reubens v. Joel, 3 Kernan 488, 490, 492. Wiggin v. Heywood, 118 Mass. 514.

Nor can he maintain his bill under the special jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 2 cl. 11, of "bills by creditors to reach and apply, in payment of a debt, any property, right, title or interest, legal or equitable, of a debtor, within this State, which cannot be come at to be...