Stevens v. Chance.

1. Action: misjoinder of causes. In an action by a creditor a money demand ai-ising upon a contract cannot be joined with a prayer to set aside a conveyance of real estate on the ground of fraud, and subject it to plaintiff’s claim against the grantor.

Appeal from Ua/rdvn Circwt Oowrt. The petition contains several causes of action against the defendant, Wm. Chance. They are money demands arising upon contracts, and judgment is prayed thereon. It is further averred that in 1875 said Wm. Chance vras the owner of certain real estate situated in Hardin county, that he was then largely indebted to the plaintiff and others, and that he fraudulently, and without consideration, and with intent to put the same beyond the reach of his creditors, conveyed said real estate to the defendant, Joshua Chance, who is his son and a minor; that said Wm. Chance is wholly insolvent, and is now offering said land for sale, and endeavoring to have the same conveyed by his son, and unless prevented by attachment the same will be sold and conveyed, and put beyond the reach of the plaintiff, and defeat him in the recovery of the sum due him. It is prayed that a writ of attachment issue against the property and effects, lands and tenements, of said Win. Chance. Wm. Chance and Joshua Chance are made parties defendant, and it is prayed that said deed may be set aside, and the title to the land decreed to be in William Chance, and that plaintiff have a special lien on the same for said debt, interest and costs, from the date of the attachment thereof, and an order for the sale thereof. Service of the original notice was made upon the defendants in Washington county, that being the place of their residence. A writ of attachment was issued and levied upon the land. The defendant, Wm. Chance, appeared in said action and moved the court to strike from the petition of the plaintiff all that portion thereof which seeks to set aside the conveyance made by him to said Joshua Chance, because there was an improper joinder of the causes of action. The motion was sustained by the court, to which ruling plaintiff excepted. The defendant, Wm. Chance, then filed his motion for a change of venue to the Circuit Court of Washington county. The motion was supported by affidavits showing that said defendant was a resident of said county. 'This motion was sustained and proper exceptions taken to the ruling. Plaintiff appeals.