Opinion
(Fall Riding, 1805.)
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.
THE bill stated that Byrd was the administrator of his brother, and they his sureties in the administration bond. That he was afterwards appointed their guardian, and of course became entitled to receive whatever he owed as administrator, which by operation of law was a payment as administrator. That the defendant had sued for the children of the intestate, on the administration bond, and recovered. The bill prayed an injunction. The answer was read, and admitted the facts above stated, but insisted that the complainants, when defendants at law, had urged the same facts by way of defense, and as they had the benefit of such defense at law, they ought not again to urge the same in equity.
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.
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.