Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Haywood, in support of the injunction, argued that such facts amount to payment; and he cited Salk., 305, 326; Cro. C., 337; 1 L. Ray., 520. There, by the verdict at law, and judgment which proceeded upon a mistake, the defendants, when they owed nothing and were legally discharged, have been unjustly made liable to the (358) payment of the sum stated in the complainant's bill. They have been guilty of no default or omission; they are brought into these circumstances by the mistake of the court and jury. And as there is no court of errors, nor any other court in this State which has power to rescind this judgment and to relieve the defendants at law by a revisal, this Court ought to proceed rather upon the ground of mistake, as was done in 2 Washington, 273, 274, 275, or because after the judgment at law the defendants at law became entitled to relief which no court of law could give. E contra it was argued that to proceed here after a cause properly cognizable at law had been determined in a court of law, would convert this Court into a court of appeals, and for matters of law into a court of errors, and in a short time all litigated causes will end here; whereas this Court is for such extraordinary cases as courts of law are not competent to redress. The defense here was proper to be made, and could have been made with as much effect at law as in equity; and if either it was not made where it might have been, and was made and overruled, though improperly, this Court ought not to interfere.
Judges
  • HALL, J.,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Haywood, in support of the injunction, argued that such facts amount to payment; and he cited Salk., 305, 326; Cro. C., 337; 1 L. Ray., 520. There, by the verdict at law, and judgment which proceeded upon a mistake, the defendants, when they owed nothing and were legally discharged, have been unjustly made liable to the (358) payment of the sum stated in the complainant's bill. They have been guilty of no default or omission; they are brought into these circumstances by the mistake of the court and jury. And as there is no court of errors, nor any other court in this State which has power to rescind this judgment and to relieve the defendants at law by a revisal, this Court ought to proceed rather upon the ground of mistake, as was done in 2 Washington, 273, 274, 275, or because after the judgment at law the defendants at law became entitled to relief which no court of law could give. E contra it was argued that to proceed here after a cause properly cognizable at law had been determined in a court of law, would convert this Court into a court of appeals, and for matters of law into a court of errors, and in a short time all litigated causes will end here; whereas this Court is for such extraordinary cases as courts of law are not competent to redress. The defense here was proper to be made, and could have been made with as much effect at law as in equity; and if either it was not made where it might have been, and was made and overruled, though improperly, this Court ought not to interfere.
Judges
  • HALL, J.,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

BRICKELL GREEN v. JONES.

It is no ground for relief in equity that a defense was made at law, and by the misapprehension of the law by the judge was overruled.

HALL, J.,

took time to consider; and after some days, determined that the facts disclosed in the bill have been used by way of defense at law; and if used there and rejected as insufficient, there could not be relief in equity.

Carried to the Court of Conference

NOTE. — See Taylor v. Wood, ante, 332, and the cases there referred to in the note.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

BRICKELL v. JONES
(Jan 1, 1805)