BRICKELL v. JONES

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.