SHAINWALD V. LEWIS. 773 �and Mr. Justice Sutherland declined to express any final opin- ion as to this conteeted boundary of jurisdiction, for the power to grant relief to the utmost extent it was pushed in the case of Hadden v, Spader was about to become in a very few days a part of the system of jurisprudence of New York "by legis- lative recognition or adoption." This case was decided in De- cember, 1829. The Eevised Statutes of New York went into operation January 1, 1830. �The case at bar does not demand any attempt on my part to determine this disputed question as to the jurisdiction of courts of equity upon which so eminent judges have differed, for the statuts of this state permits ail choses in action and equitable assets to be reached by execution of law. The objection, therefore, to the jurisdiction chiefly relied on by Chancellor Sandford, in Donavan v. Fin, cannot here be raised. The bill, moreover, in this case is not a ,bill to reach equitable assets alone. It is a bill for an injunction and receiver to prevent the defendant from secreting, conveying away, and converting into money, property which is justly subject to execution, including property which is, in whole or in part, the proceeds of the property fraudulently obtained and converted by him. It seeks to arrest and baffle the exe- cution of an avowed purpose to evade the decree of this court and to render i^. fruitless to the bankrupt's creditors whom he bas defrauded. But the question upon which the conflict of opinion arose in New York seeme, so far as the United States courts are concemed, to be authoritatively settled. �In Board of Public Works v. Col. College, 17 Wall. 530, the supreme court says: "The jurisdiction of a court of equity to reach the propei-ty of a debtof justly applicable to the pay- ment of his debts, even where there is no specifie lien on the property, is undoubted." �It is objected that even if a court of equity bas jurisdiction to reach assets of every description in aid of a judgment crediter, it can only do so where the assets are indicated in the bill, and that it bas no authorityupon mere general alle- gations, such as those contained in this bill, to enjoin the defendant, or to compel an assignment of ail his property to a ��� �
