If an exception be taken to an answer in chancery upon the
ground that certain allegations in the bill are neither answered,
admitted, nor denied, it becomes necessary to inquire whether the
facts charged in the allegations are material, and might, if
established, contribute to support the equity of the
complainant.
If they will not, the omission to answer the allegations is not
a good ground for exception to the answer, and the exception must
be overruled.
Therefore, when a bill charged that certain notes were given for
the purchase of slaves introduced into the State of Mississippi as
merchandise and for sale after the first day of May, 1833, and the
answer omitted to notice the allegation, such omission was not a
good ground for an exception.
This Court has repeatedly decided that the fact stated is no
defense to a suit at law. Still less can it be a defense in
equity.
Where an allegation in the bill was that the complainants were
only sureties, and that their principal was insolvent, the answer
was not justly subject to exception for omitting to notice it. The
fact in no way strengthened the equity of the complainants.
The facts in the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion
of the Court.
Page 48 U. S. 727
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, the complainants filed a bill in the Circuit
Court
Page 48 U. S. 728
for the Southern District of Mississippi praying a perpetual
injunction against a judgment at law which had been obtained
against them. The bill, among other things, states that the note
upon which the judgment was awarded was given for the purchase
money of certain slaves brought by the defendant into the State of
Mississippi, as merchandise and for sale, after the first day of
May in the year 1833, and sold in the state to a certain James M.
Smith, in violation of the constitution and laws of the state; that
the complainant Hardeman was surety for Smith; that a judgment was
afterwards obtained against him, and an execution issued and levied
upon his property, and that, to prevent it from being sold, he
executed a forthcoming bond with the other complainant, Hill as his
security, which bond had become forfeited, and therefore had the
form and effect of a judgment against the complainants, and that
Smith, for whom he was security, was dead and his estate
insolvent.
The defendant answered, and upon the coming in of the answer,
the following exceptions were taken to it by the complainants:
"1st. The bill charges that the slaves mentioned in
complainants' bill, sold by the defendant, Harris to James M.
Smith, and which constitute the consideration of the note upon
which the judgment at law enjoined in this cause was rendered, were
introduced into the State of Mississippi by the said defendant
Harris for sale and as merchandise after the first day of May,
1833. This allegation has not been answered, admitted, or
denied."
"2d. It is alleged in the bill that complainant Hardeman was
only surety in the note sued upon at law, and that C.P. Smith,
executor of James M. Smith, was principal, and that the estate of
James M. Smith is insolvent &c. These allegations are neither
answered, admitted, nor denied."
And upon the hearing of these exceptions, the judges were
divided in opinion upon the point whether they were well taken and
should be sustained or not, and therefore ordered the question to
be certified for decision to this Court.
It is very clear that neither of these exceptions can be
maintained. It has been repeatedly decided in this Court that the
fact stated in the first is no defense at law, and still less can
it be a ground of relief in equity after a judgment at law.
And as regards the second, certainly the insolvency of the
principal debtor is no defense to the surety, either at law or in
equity.
If, therefore, the defendant had admitted in the most explicit
terms the allegations mentioned in the exceptions, they would not
have contributed in any degree to support the claim of the
Page 48 U. S. 729
complainants to the relief they ask. And consequently, the
omission to answer (if the answer be open to that objection)
furnishes no ground of exception. It is not a sufficient foundation
for an exception, that a fact charged in a bill is not answered,
unless the fact is material, and might contribute to support the
equity of the case of the complainant, and induce the court to give
the relief sought by the bill.
The exceptions ought, therefore, to have been overruled, and we
shall direct it to be so certified to the circuit court.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the circuit court of the United States, for the Southern
District of Mississippi, and on the points or questions on which
the judges of the said circuit court were opposed in opinion, and
which were certified to this Court, for its opinion, agreeably to
the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued
by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this
Court that the exceptions by the complainants were not well taken,
and ought to have been overruled. Whereupon it is now here ordered
and decreed, that it be so certified to the said circuit court.