Equitable relief should not be denied, however, unless the available legal remedy is against the same person from whom equitable relief is sought. Barr v. Roderick, 11 F.2d 984, 986 (N.D. Cal. 1925) ("[t]he fundamental principle . . . that equity will grant no relief where an adequate remedy at law exists, must be limited strictly to cases in which there is an adequate legal remedy against the defendants before the court."). See also Katsivalis v. Serrano Reconveyance Co., 70 Cal.App.3d 200, 138 Cal.Rptr. 620, 627 (1977) ("a legal remedy against one of several obligors cannot relieve another obligor of his equitable responsibility"); Dudley v. Keller, 33 Colo. App. 320, 325, 521 P.2d 175, 178 (1974) ("an adequate remedy at law must exist against the same person from whom the relief in equity is sought in order to bar the equitable action"); Hill v. Hill, 185 Kan. 389, 345 P.2d 1015, 1025 (1959) (remedy must exist against same person from whom the relief in equity is sought); TCF Banking Sav. v. Loft Homes, Inc., 439 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989) (mortgagee eligible for equitable relief of rescission even though he had a legal remedy against another party); Buttinghausen v
The right to this remedy at law would be dependent upon whether a valid easement existed or did not exist. If a valid easement exists, it constitutes a complete defense for the appellants in this suit, and they would have no interest in whether the appellees were entitled to a refund of their purchase money or not. If an easement does not exist, and we hold that it does not, then the appellees would not be entitled to a return of their purchase money from their grantor, so the argument fails from this angle also. Furthermore, the doctrine that equity will grant no relief when there is an adequate remedy at law is limited to cases in which there is an adequate legal remedy against the defendants that are before the court. Barr v. Roderick, 11 F.2d 984 (D.C., N.D. Cal.); Thorn, etc. v. Citizens Bank of St. Louis, 59 S.W. 109 (Mo.); Middletown Bank v. Russ, 3 Conn. 135, 8 Am. Dec. 164; 21 C.J., Equity, p. 51, n. 37; cf. Jackson's Admin. v. Turner, 5 Leigh (32 Va.) 119. Decree affirmed, with costs.
The remedy must exist against the same parties of whom the relief in equity is sought. Barr v. Roderick, 11 F.2d 984. We submit that the appellee here had no legal remedy at all.
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).Barr v. Roderick, 11 F.2d 984, 986 (N.D. Cal. 1925) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).Mort v. United States, 86 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Equitable relief should not be denied . . . unless the available legal remedy is against the same person from whom equitable relief is sought."); Dudley v. Keller, 521 P.2d 175, 178 (Colo.App. 1974) ("an adequate remedy at law must exist against the same person from whom the relief in equity is sought in order to bar the equitable action"); Hill v. Hill, 345 P.2d 1015, 1025 (Kan. 1959) ("[A] remedy [at law] must exist against the same person from whom the relief in equity is sought."); Buttinghausen v. Rappeport, 24 A.2d 877, 880 (N.J. Ch. 1942) ("the legal remedy which may move equity to deny relief is a remedy against the same person from whom relief in equity is sought.").
McNorton argues that another general rule is that the remedy at law must exist against the same person from whom the relief in equity is sought. E.g., Hill v. Hill, 185 Kan. 389, 345 P.2d 1015 (1959); Mitchell v. Houstle, 217 Md. 259, 142 A.2d 556 (1958); Buttinghausen v. Rappeport, 131 N.J. Eq. 252, 24 A.2d 877 (1942); Barr v. Roderick, 11 F.2d 984 (N.D.Cal. 1925); Middleton Bank v. Russ, 3 Conn. 135, 8 Am.Dec. 164 (1819); 30 C.J.S., Equity ยง 25 (1965). As a matter of first impression, we hold the "same person" rule is sound; therefore, the face of McNorton's complaint does not reveal an adequate remedy at law.
In the first place the existence of a legal remedy against one of several obligors cannot relieve another obligor of his equitable responsibility. (See Barr v. Roderick (N.D. Cal. 1925) 11 F.2d 984, 986.) In the second place the title company, if called upon to indemnify the lender is entitled to be subrogated to all of its rights against the borrower.