Hyde v. Baker
| Decision Date | 22 May 1905 |
| Docket Number | 359 |
| Citation | 61 A. 823,212 Pa. 224 |
| Parties | Hyde v. Baker, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 16, 1905
Appeal, No. 359, Jan. T., 1904, by defendants, from decree of C.P. Schuylkill Co., Nov. T., 1902, No. 1, on bill in equity in case of Edward S. Hyde v. E. H. Baker, Deborah L. Baker et al. Reversed.
Bill in equity to declare fraudulent certain deeds of conveyance.
The bill having set forth certain conveyances executed by E. H Baker and his wife, in alleged fraud of defendant's rights as a creditor, concluded with the following prayers:
1. That the said alleged deed from E. H. Baker and Deborah L. Baker his wife, to George W. Gise, dated April 11, 1901, and recorded in recorder's office of Schuylkill county in deed book 287, page 338, be declared fraudulent, void and of no effect.
2. That the said alleged deed from George W. Gise and Mary M. Gise, his wife, to Deborah L. Baker, dated April 11, 1901, and recorded in recorder's office of Schuylkill county in deed book 287, page 347, be decreed fraudulent, void and of no effect.
3. That the said alleged deed from Deborah L. Baker and E. H. Baker, her husband, to G. S. Barr, dated August 27, 1902, and recorded in recorder's office of Schuylkill county, in deed book 298, page 116, be decreed fraudulent, void, and of no effect.
4. That the said Deborah L. Baker be decreed to execute a reconveyance of said real estate described herein to said E. H. Baker.
5. That the said G. S. Barr be decreed to execute a reconveyance of the real estate described in the herein cited deed from said Deborah L. Baker and E. H. Baker, her husband, to him, to said E. H. Baker.
6. That pending this bill the said defendant be specially and thereafter perpetually restrained from executing any transfer or conveyance to third parties of any of the real estate mentioned in said alleged deeds, or in any manner encumbering the same.
7. That, if the said Deborah L. Baker and E. H. Baker, her husband, have already made any transfers of the interest of said E. H. Baker of any portion of said real estate for value, that they, the said Deborah L. Baker and E. H. Baker, be decreed to pay such consideration received or to be received to a trustee to be named by the court to abide the final disposition and payment of the said judgment of the said Edward S. Hyde against E. H. Baker to No. 129, September Term, 1901, for the sum of $2,454.30, with interest.
The case was heard on bill, answer and proofs, and a decree was entered in favor of the complainant and in accordance with the prayers of his bill.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
Decree reversed and bill dismissed, costs to be paid by the appellee.
George W. Gise, with him W. F. Shepherd, for appellants. -- Complainant had an adequate remedy at law: Bowers v. Bennethum, 133 Pa. 306; Stewart's App. 78 Pa. 88; Davidson v. Little, 22 Pa. 245; Taylor's App., 93 Pa. 21.
John F. Whalen, with him Wesley K. Woodbury, for appellees. -- Equity is the only proper and adequate remedy in this case: Thomson v. Dougherty, 12 S. & R. 448; Fowler v. Kingsley, 87 Pa. 449; Houseman v. Grossman, 177 Pa. 453.
As a general rule, courts of equity have jurisdiction to relieve against every species of fraud. Where the remedy at law is not full or adequate, the jurisdiction of equity is undoubted: Clauer v. Clauer, 22 Pa.Super. 395.
Equity has concurrent jurisdiction with law where property has been fraudulently conveyed in order to defeat the claim of creditors.
In modern equity practice a complainant a court of equity cannot be turned out of court for want of jurisdiction merely because he has a remedy at law; it must be shown further that his remedy at law is adequate: Gray v. Citizens' Gas Co., 206 Pa. 303.
Before DEAN, FELL, MESTREZAT, POTTER and ELKIN, JJ.
Did the court below have jurisdiction in equity to entertain this bill? The answer to this question will dispose of this appeal. We do not dispute the general principle relied upon by the appellee that where fraud is alleged equity has concurrent jurisdiction with law. In our state, however, the settled rule has never been departed from that equity jurisdiction will not attach where there is a full, complete and adequate remedy at law. Our reports are full of cases in which this principle is involved, but in no instance has it been decided that equity had jurisdiction where all the above specified requirements of a remedy at law exist. In a very large and increasing number of cases equity jurisdiction has been sustained where under the peculiar facts thereof it was held that the remedy at law was inadequate or ineffectual. In some of the cases it was not full, in others not complete, in others not adequate, and in still others it was neither complete nor adequate. Under such circumstances equity has concurrent jurisdiction. In the case at bar the remedy at law is full, complete and...
To continue reading
Request your trial