Page images

conflicting claims; and that they are molesting him
with separate suits, are sufficient to sustain the bill,
and authorize an injunction and order to interplead.
Burton vs. Black......

4. Such a bill would be made still stronger by a show-
ing that one of the conflicting claims is legal, and the
other equitable. Ibid.


5. When a guardian is charged by his former ward with
being guilty of devastavit, and he has given different
bonds, with additional or different securities, in the
course of his guardianship; a bill may be filed against
the guardian and the different sets of securities, pray-
ing a discovery of the amount of the devastavit and the
time when it occurred, in order to charge each set of
securities according to their respective liabilities on
their bonds-Provided, the bill charges the total or
partial insolvency of the principal, or a well grounded
apprehension that the guardian will be unable to satisfy
the recovery which may be obtained against him.
McDougald, adm'r, et al., vs. Maddox and wife....... 63
6. To make the dismissal of a former bill a bar to the
bringing of a second, the material allegations in both
must be the same. Ibid.

7. One of two executors filed a bill in equity, against
his co-executor, alleging a sale of testator's property,
receipt of money by defendant, that he was in an em-
barrassed condition, and had spent the money, etc.;
with a prayer that the defendant might bring the
money into Court, to be secured for the trusts of the
will, to protect complainant from loss on account there-
of, etc.: 1. Held, that there was equity in the bill.
Sheehan vs. Kennelly....

8. That an injunction prayed for by the bill, requiring
the defendant to give bond to have the money forth-
coming to answer the decree previously granted and
ordered, was proper and necessary, and ought not to
have been dissolved. Ibid.

9. A Court of Chancery will not interfere by injunction
to restrain a trespass, unless in a special case, where the
remedy at law is not complete. Crown vs. Leonard
& Goodale.....


.... 241
10. A second amendment of a bill in equity, after adju-
dication by this Court that neither the original bill
nor the first amendment contained allegations entitling

the complainant to relief, will be allowed, if merito-
rious, and if presented to the Court below before final
order dismissing the bill. Jones et al., vs. Munroe... 181
11. Equity, in a proper case made, will relieve against
an agreement of compromise, made under a mistake
of law, by the party seeking relief. Ibid.

12. The answer of one defendant cannot be read in evi-
dence against his co-defendant, when, instead of being
any privity between the parties, they are in an atti-
tude of hostility to each other. Adkins vs. Paul...... 219
13. G. & H. assign their effects to G-
debts. B, a creditor of G. & H.,
enforce this agreement for his benefit.


to pay their
may, by bill,
Bell vs. Me-

14. Three things are necessary to maintain a bill for a
new trial-ignorance of the defense at the time the
judgment at law was rendered, diligence on the part
of the complainant, and that adequate relief cannot
be had at law. Nisbett vs. Cantrell.....


.... 294
15. A bill which seeks a new trial on the ground of new-
ly discovered evidence, should set out what testimony
was offered on the former trial, so that the Court can
determine whether the newly discovered evidence is
cumulative or not, and also whether the evidence, if
let in, would vary the verdict. Ibid.

16. At the request of S., a claim against him is bought
by H., at a large discount, under an agreement at the
time, that if S. will refund to H. the amount paid for
the claim, with interest, by the time the same is due, S.
shall be released as to the balance. S. failing to make
payment according to the contract, H. is proceeding
to collect the whole claim: Held, that the collection
ought not to be enjoined, except upon condition that
S. pay to H. the amount paid by him for the claim,
with interest thereon, according to the contract. Scott
vs. Harkins and Arthur....

17. When a party has once had an opportunity of being
heard, and neglects to assert his cause until the judg-
ment of the Court has been made, settling the rights
of the parties, he must abide the consequences of his
neglect. A Court of Equity cannot relieve him there-
from, even when the judgment is manifestly wrong.
York vs. Clopton, et al......




18. The answer of one defendant to a bill in equity can
not be read as evidence against his co-defendant.
len vs. Holden.......


19. This Court will not control the discretion of the
Circuit Judge in refusing to appoint a Receiver, and
in dissolving an injunction, where all the equity of the
bill is successfully avoided by the answer. Rhodes

vs. Lee..


... 470

20. A deed contained a condition of defeasance upon a
certain contingency, and also provided, that upon the
happening of the contingency, the grantee might re-
move any improvements placed upon the premises by
him: Held, that in the absence of an averment that
the grantee had attempted to remove improvements
and had been obstructed in it, there was no sufficient
reason for the intervention of equity. Willcoxon vs.


... 480

21. S. granted to the Atlanta and West Point Railroad
Company a right-of-way over his lands. In consid-
eration of the grant the Railroad Company contracted
to take from a platform, to be erected beside their
road, on the premises of the grantor, all produce to be
shipped by him, and to bring and place on the plat-
form all freight shipped by or for him to that place
from any other point on their road: Provided he
should give three days notice to the nearest agent of
the Company of any such freight to be transported:
Held, that a Court of Equity will not decree a specific
performance of such a contract. Held, also, that for
any breach of such a contract there is an adequate
remedy at law. A. & W. R. R. Co., vs. Speer.......... 550
22. A Court of Equity will not interfere to enforce a con-
tract except by a decree for specific performance, and
there is no sufficient foundation for the prayer for
pecuniary damages for past violations of the contract
in this case. Ibid.

23. Where the intention of the parties to a contract is
sufficiently apparent to be recognized in any Court,
the fact that a word is omitted is no sufficient reason
for bringing a party into a Court of Equity for a re-
formation of the contract. Ibid.

24. When the remedy for the complainant is adequate
and complete at law, the bill ought to be dismissed on
motion. Branton vs. Bush..



25. N. H. and L. H. caused it to be publicly announced
at the sale of lands belonging to the estate of their
deceased father, that they and their three brothers
were homeless; that provision had been made for the
other heirs-at-law of the deceased, and that they
wished to buy the lands for the joint use and benefit
of themselves and their three brothers. By the an-
nouncement, bidding at the sale was suppressed, and
N. H. and L. H. bought the lands for greatly less
than their value, and shortly thereafter sold them at a
large profit: Held, that equity will compel them to
account to their three brothers for the interest of the
latter. McRarey & Huff vs. Huff et al..............
26. Where a testator bequeathed money to his married
sister, for her sole and separate use during her life,
remainder to her children, and there was nothing in
the will showing an intention or desire on the part of
the testator that the legacy should be held by the ex-
executor as trustee: Held, that upon a bill filed by
the husband of the usee for life, showing his appoint-
ment as trustee, it is legal and proper for a Court of
Equity to decree the payment and delivery of the
legacy to him as trustee, upon such just and equitable
terms as shall make the estate secure in his hands.
Gardner vs. Weeks....
See Charity; Equity Pleading and Practice; Parties, 1,
2, 4; Trusts and Trustees, 2, 3.


An objection to a bill, on the ground that the com-
plainant has an adequate remedy at law, comes too
late, at the hearing when the bill is set down for trial.
It must be taken advantage of the first opportunity.
Bell vs. McGrady........

See Equity, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 20, 24.



1. It is not error in the Court, whilst a cause is pro-
gressing, to require one party, upon motion of the
other, to deliver up, to be used as evidence, papers
pertinent to the issue, and admitted to be in his pos-
session and in Court. Boatright vs. Heirs of Porter.. 130
2. A charge predicated upon testimony that should have
been excluded is erroneous. Tolleson vs. Posey........ 372

3. A charge wholly unwarranted by the evidence, is er-
roneous. Johnson vs. Black & Cobb.....

See Attachment, 1; Charge of the Court; Devise and
Legacy, 4; Interrogatories, 3.


See Conveyance, 2; Deeds, 7; Devise and Legacy, 1.


1. A party who is not only present and acquiescing in
what is being done, but for a valuable consideration
procures another to convey away his property, will be
bound by the conveyance, as if it were his own act.
Burton vs. Black......

2. A party is not entitled to the judgment of two sepa-
rate and independent tribunals, upon the same sub-
ject matter, and a judgment rendered in one, will be
a bar to a second hearing in the other; and, upon
proof of the first judgment, the case pending before
the other tribunal will be dismissed. Hartell, Trustee,
vs. Searcy......



... 190

3. A party to a bill in equity is estopped by a decree
thereon, as to matters put in issue by the pleadings,
and settled by the decree. Carr et al., vs. Emory

4. Where a cestui que trust consents that a part of the
trust property may be exchanged for other property
by the trustee, and upon a bill filed to remove the
trustee, the exchange is passed upon and sanctioned
by a special jury and the Chancellor, and ratified by
a decree, the cestui que trust is estopped. Ibid.
See Charter.



1. The affidavit of a plaintiff in ejectment, that a cer-
tain deed had been in existence, and had been destroyed
by fire, as he verily believes, and that it is not in his
possession, power or control, is a sufficient compliance
with the 50th Common Law rule of practice of the
Superior Court, to authorize the introduction of a copy.
Roe & McDowell vs. Doe, ex dem, Irwin........

2. In such an action the affidavit of a man who, at the


« PreviousContinue »