Case ID: ill_1/html/0254-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Justice Smith.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Greenup and Conway, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Philander Woodworth, Defendant in Error.
    ERROR TO RANDOLPH.
    Where a full and ample defense might be made at law, equity will not relieve.
   Opinion of the Court by

Justice Smith.

This case is similar to the preceding, excepting, that in the facts disclosed, it appears that the judgment against the defendants in the action at law, in their representative capacity, was by confession, and in the action against them in their personal character, by default for want of a plea. The recovery here, as in the other case, has been in the due course of legal proceedings ; no fraud or mistake alleged, nor want of means of making a defense at law, and investigating the grounds now urged as cause of relief in equity.

We can perceive no color for even the interference of the equitable powers of a court, much less the annulling of a judgment duly obtained in the course of legal proceedings.

If the administrators had grounds of defense, they were of a legal character and should have been interposed during the progress of the actions against them. It however appears they have admitted their liability, by their own confession, and suffered judgment to be entered thereon.

This surely puts an end to their asking relief now. The same ground, as to the sale of real estate taken upon execution, is also presented. As the facts disclosed are of the same character in point of time, and the nature of the liability, upon the return of nulla bona in the action suggesting a devastavit. The opinion that there can be no exemption from sale for a sum not less than two-thirds of the appraised value of the land, is applicable to this case also, and must prevail.

McRoberts, for plaintiffs in error.

Baker, for defendant in error.

The decree of the circuit court is therefore affirmed with costs. ,

Decree affirmed. 
      
       Vide same plaintiffs v. Brown, and cases there referred to, ante, p. 252.
     
      
       See note to More et al. v. Bagley et al., ante, p, 94.