Case ID: walk-ch_1/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pascal D. Webb v. Israel Williams et al.
    
    Whore complainant filed his bill in this Court for relief against a judgment at law, and subsequently sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court on the judgment, an order was granted compelling him to elect in which Court he would proceed.
    On a motion to compel a complainant to elect between prosecuting his suit in thi3 Court, and proceeding on a writ of error in the Supreme Court, for relief against a judgment at law, it is not necessary to serve a copy of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, with the notice of the motion.
    Defendants brought an action of ejectment, in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw county, against complainant, for two undivided thirds of the west half of the southeast quarter of section 7, town 4, south of range 6, east, and obtained a verdict and judgment therefor, at the November Term of the Court, in 1842. January 13th, 1843, complainant filed his bill in this Court, and obtained an injunction restraining defendants from taking out execution on their judgment. In January last the injunction was dissolved; and, on the twentieth of March, complainant sued out a writ of error in the Supreme Court, on the judgment, and filed a bond staying execution under the statute. A motion is now made by defendants, for an order requiring him to elect in which Court he will proceed.
    
      J. Allen, in support of the motion.
    
      O. Hawkins, contra.
   The Chancellor.

The case of Cockerel v. Cholmeley, 1 Russ. & Myl. R. 418, is in point. In that case, as in this, a bill was filed to restrain defendant from proceeding at law on a judgment, and complainant, having brought a writ of error in the House of Lords, it was held he could not proceed at law and in equity, at the same time. That he must either abandon his writ of error, or dismiss his bill.

It was not necessary to serve a copy of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, with notice of the motion. The notice was sufficient in stating, as it did, that the motion would be founded on an affidavit, a copy of which was served, and on the pleadings in the respective causes. Motion granted.