The jurisdiction of the Court of Equity in particular cases, as, for example, upon lost instruments, is not affected by the assumption of jurisdiction in such cases by the courts of law. [Acc. Hendricks v. Dallum, 1 Tenn. 427; Irwin v. Planters' Bank, 1 Hum. 145; 1 Tenn. 9; and see Williams v. Patterson, 2 Tenn. 230, and Sylvia v. Covey, 4 Y. 297, where this case is cited.]
In matters of account, if the legality of a debit or credit be disputed, the Court settles the point of law, and the clerk and master calculates and reports the amount.
In Equity in consequence of a bond that was lost.
Per Curiam.
It is true that suits at law may now be maintained in a case situated like the present. Bat the Court of Equity having previously jurisdiction of cases of this nature, their jurisdiction is not taken away by the courts of law having taken cognizance. The jurisdiction of the two courts are now concurrent. In matters of account, if the legality of a debit or credit be disputed, it is the practice for the Court to settle the point of law, and the clerk and master is to make the calculation of the amount and balance.
See 3 Bro. C. C. 218; Cox v. Strode, Ct. Appeals, Kentucky, Fall, 1810; 2 Wash. 121; 2 Caines' C. E. 37; 1 Atk. 128; Newl. 492.