Truly v. Wanzer - 46 U.S. 141 (1847)


U.S. Supreme Court

Truly v. Wanzer, 46 U.S. 5 How. 141 141 (1847)

Truly v. Wanzer

46 U.S. (5 How.) 141

Syllabus

The preceding case of Rowan and Harris v. Runnels reviewed and confirmed.

The general principle with regard to injunctions after a judgment at law is this -- that any fact which proves it to be against conscience to execute such judgment, and of which the party could not have availed himself in a court of law or of which he might have availed himself at law but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will authorize a court of equity to interfere by injunction to restrain the adverse party from availing himself of such judgment.

Hence, where a party had remained for ten years in the undisturbed enjoyment of the property which he purchased, it was no ground for an injunction to stay proceedings for the recovery of the purchase money to say that the original purchase was void by the laws of the state, but that he had neglected to urge that defense at law, or to say that he had heard that some persons unknown might possibly at some future time assert a title to the property.

Such an injunction, if granted, must be dissolved.

The facts in the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Court.



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.