Suits at law: settlements; when no estoppel. Judgment: injunction to restrain — ; fraud, etc. Justices of the Peace: review by Circuit Courts.
An appeal to the Circuit Court from a judgment of a justice of the peace was settled and the following receipt given, "Received of Defendant Company Fifty ($50.00) Dollars in settlement of above case by compromise," which was signed by the plaintiff's counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiff brought a new suit for injuries claimed, growing out of the same transaction; an injunction was applied for to the Circuit Court to restrain the proceedings on the ground that the above receipt was in settlement of all litigation for the same injury; it was held, that the receipt did not operate upon the plaintiff as an estoppel against any further litigation and the application for the injunction was refused. p. 188
Where a party has a defense at law and neglects to avail himself of it, equity will not interfere. p. 186
A party in Court is bound to be present in person or by attorney to take care of his rights and attend to their due prosecution, and cannot make the omission to perform the duty, of itself a foundation for an injunction. pp. 186-187
Where fraud in obtaining a judgment is alleged as the basis of an application for an injunction to restrain its prosecution the facts constituting the fraud must be set out in full so that the Court may see whether, if true, they would constitute fraud in law. p. 186
An injunction will not be granted by a Circuit Court to restrain a plaintiff from proceeding further in a suit brought before a justice of the peace, in the absence of any averment that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained irregularly; that there had been no service of process, etc., or that there was fraud, collusion or surprise. p. 186
A Circuit Court sitting as a Court of Equity cannot review cases heard at law by justices of the peace, where all the matters alleged in the bill in criticism of the powers of the magistrate to consider a cause or render a judgment, are matters which the defendant could have set up in a defense to the action, equity will not interfere. p. 187
Decided May 10th, 1912.
STOCKBRIDGE, J., delivered opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Prince George's County, in equity, sustaining a demurrer to, and dismissing a bill filed by, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad against Guy W. Latimer.
The opinion filed by JUDGE BEALL in the lower Court is so full and clear, that it might well be adopted by this Court as its own, and the reporter of this Court is asked to incorporate it in the report of this case, as covering fully every point of law directly involved.
The very elaborate brief filed on behalf of the appellant constrains us to add a few words, however. The main contention of the railroad company is that when on November 25th, 1910, it paid fifty dollars to Dr. Latimer such payment was not merely a settlement of the judgment already obtained, but of all possible future litigation which might originate from similar acts to those complained of and to recover for which the suit of 1908 had been brought. Neither the bill itself nor the exhibits filed with the bill give any sufficient basis to sustain this argument. The receipt of Dr. Latimer's attorneys expressly says, that the fifty dollars which was paid in 1910 was "in settlement of the above case," (the suit instituted in 1908). When the second suit was instituted in 1910, it was in terms limited to injuries suffered within the twelve months immediately preceding the commencement of the action. The two suits were therefore for different causes of action.
Decree affirmed, with costs to the appellee.