Opinion
03-07-1817
Horner v. Marshall's Administratrix
Gustavus B. Horner presented a Will to the Chancellor for the Richmond District, praying an Injunction to stay proceedings on the two Judgments obtained against him, for defamation, by Charles Marshall and by Charles Marshall and wife, which, after the death of the said Marshall, had been revived by actions of debt, instituted by his widow and administratrix.
The grounds of Equity stated in the Bill were, in substance, that the complainant, at the time of speaking the words, for which the actions of slander were brought, and when the Judgments were obtained, was in a state of partial mental derangement, occasioned by a domestic calamity; that Marshall himself was convinced of this, and, contented with receiving the costs only, declared his intention never to demand the damages recovered by those Judgments, which lay dormant from the year 1797 to 1807; but no written release was ever executed.
Judges Roane, Brooke, and Cabell concurring, Judge Coalter being absent.
OPINION
Chancellor Taylor refused, but the President of the Court of Appeals (JUDGES ROANE, BROOKE, and CABELL concurring, JUDGE COALTER being absent,) granted the Injunction.
The cause was heard on the Bill, Answer, Exhibits and Examinations of Witnesses, by which the allegations in the Bill in relation to the partial mental derangement of the complainant, were amply supported; it appearing that, on the subject, to which the defamatory words related, he was insane, though his mind was sound in other respects. It appeared, also, in evidence, that Marshall refused to release the Judgments to Horner; determining to hold them as a security for his future good behavior; though he repeatedly expressed an intention not to demand the money, and that his children never should receive it; and, sometime after the Judgments were obtained, Horner and Marshall were publicly reconciled, and shook hands as a token of renewing their former friendship.
Chancellor Taylor dismissed the Bill with costs, from which Decree the complainant appealed.
The case was submitted here without argument; and, on the 7th of March, 1817, the Court reversed the Decree with costs, and, proceeding to make such Decree, as the Chancellor should have rendered, directed the Injunction to be re-instated and made perpetual; but, on the circumstances of the case, that the Appellant pay the costs in the Court of Chancery.