Where a bill in chancery was filed for the purpose of enjoining
a judgment at law obtained upon a promissory note, and the bill did
not allege that adequate relief could not be had at law and did not
contain any charges of fraud, neither did it aver that it was owing
to the contrivance or unfairness of the defendant that an adequate
remedy could not be had at law, nor did it show the necessity of
interference by a court of equity to obtain a discovery, the bill
must be dismissed.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Page 61 U. S. 160
MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In his bill, the complainant states that prior to the 1st of
December, 1851, he had numerous business transactions with the
defendant, who had made advances of money to him on divers
occasions, and payments had been made to him by the complainant. In
a conversation in relation to their accounts, the defendant
admitted the complainant was indebted to him only in about the sum
of four thousand two hundred dollars, and on that day the defendant
proposed to the complainant that he should execute to the defendant
a promissory note for the sum of ten thousand dollars, payable one
day after date, which he wished to use as a collateral security on
which to raise money, and he agreed not to sell or dispose of the
same or urge the complainant for the payment of the note, but would
indulge him until he could make collections. And having unlimited
confidence in the defendant, and feeling under many obligations to
him for his various acts of kindness, the complainant made and
delivered to the defendant, on the 1st of
Page 61 U. S. 161
December, 1851, a note of hand for $10,000, payable one day
after date, to the order of John Sigerson, for value received,
without defalcation or discount, negotiable and payable at the Bank
of the State of Missouri. And the complainant avers that the note
was given under the circumstances and for the consideration stated,
and on no other or different account; that since the date first
above stated, he and the defendant have had no dealings
whatever.
And the complainant alleges that on the 10th of August, 1852,
the defendant caused a suit to be brought against him on the above
note, and on the 11th of January, 1854, a judgment was recovered
for $11,258.33 and costs. And the complainant says the judgment is
unjust insofar as it exceeds in amount the sum of four thousand two
hundred and seventy-five dollars and interest.
And the complainant prays the defendant may be enjoined from
collecting such part of the judgment as exceeds the sum he owes to
the defendant, and this sum he offers to pay. Numerous
interrogatories to the defendant are stated in the bill designed to
show the money transactions between them and the amount due by the
complainant to the defendant.
A demurrer was filed to the bill which, on argument, was
sustained and the bill dismissed at the costs of the complainant,
on which an appeal was allowed.
The subject matter of this controversy arises out of mutual
dealings between the parties and the consideration on which the
note stated in the pleadings was given. There is no allegation in
the bill that adequate relief could not be had at law. There is no
charge of fraud or that the note had been assigned contrary to the
agreement, nor that, by the contrivance or unfairness of the
defendant, a remedy was not had at law, nor is there anything in
the bill from which the court can infer a discovery is necessary to
reach the justice of the case.
Where a party has failed to make a proper defense at law through
negligence, equity will not aid him. If by accident or fraud such a
defense has been prevented, a court of equity may grant relief.
When the decree below was pronounced on the demurrer, the
complainant, by application to the court, might have asked leave to
amend his bill, which the court, as a matter of course, would have
allowed. But he prayed an appeal to this Court, resting his whole
case on the bill. And as it contains no averments authorizing
relief in equity, none can be given.
The decree of the district court is affirmed.