Case ID: va_20/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE ROANE", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Winn v. Bowles.
    Decided Nov. 6, 1817.
    x. Chancery Jurisdiction — Suit of Assignee — Effect of Statute, — The right of the assignee of a bond to demand payment thereof in a Court of Equity, which existed before the Statute authorising him to sue at law in his own name upon the assignment, is not impaired by the Statute; but the latter remedy is cumulative and additional to the former.
    This was a suit in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, brought by Thomas Winn, junr. against Benjamin Bowles, administrator of Mary Bowles, deceased, and Augustine Bowles, defendants; — for an account of the assets of the said decedent, and to recover (among other claims) the principal and interest of a Bond for481. Is. 3d., executed by the said Mary Bowles, in her life time, to John Winn executor of Hezekiah *Winn deceased, and by the said executor assigned to the plaintiff.
    The cause being heard, on the Bill, Answers and Exhibits, an account was directed to be taken, of Benjamin Bowles’s administration of the estate of Mary Bowles; — in pursuance of which order, a Commissioner made two statements; one shewing a balance of $248 34; the other, of $103 34; due the estate,'the 1st of January 1812. — But, on a farther hearing, the Bill was dismissed with Costs; from which Decree the plaintiff appealed.
    William Hay, jr. for the appellant.
    The Chancellor, instead of dismissing the Bill, should have adopted one or the other of the Commissioner’s statements, both of which shewed assets in the defendant’s hands. The first statement ought to have been preferred, for the reasons given by the Commissioner.
    The plaintiff was not bound to go into a Court of law, in the first place; for Equity has concurrent jurisdiction in the administration of legal assets. The origin of this jurisdiction is not material, if it be established by precedents; — -but it’s origin will shew that the creditor is let into the Court of Chancery in the first instance. The practice, originally, was to file a Bill for discovery only, of assets; but, as that could not be had without an account, the Court proceeded to direct the account; and, (to prevent multiplicity of suits,) went on to make a complete decree, giving the party his debt likewise,  So firmly settled is this jurisdiction, that, when once a decree quod computet is made, the Court will not permit a creditor to proceed at law.
    
    Wirt contra.
    A simple action of debt on a Bond cannot be brought in equity. There is no averment in this Bill, of any deficiency of assets, or difficulty of getting at them. No proof is adduced, of any of the plaintiff’s claims, except the bond. The cause was heard on bill and answer only, without replication.
    Hay in reply.
    Upon examining the authorities, the Court will find they fully support my position. The jurisdiction of Courts of Equity has generally been obtained by usurpation upon the Courts of law. The case of Bower is an example. The Court of law can in that case give relief; — yet it is given in Equity.
    this case, the other claims in the Bill, (exclusive of the bond debt,) being proper for equitable jurisdiction, will draw to them the jurisdiction as to the bond debt also.
    
      
       Chancery Jurisdiction — Suit by Assignee — Effect of Statute, — To the point that, notwithstanding the statute authorizing an assignee to sue at law in his own name upon the assignment, he is entitled to the same remedy in equity that he was entitled to before the statute — the remedy at law being merely cumulative and not exclusive — the principal case was cited in Garland v. Richeson, 4 Rand. 270. To the same effect, the principal case is cited in Bib v. Martin, 5 Leigh 189; Ruffners v. Lewis, 7 Leigh 739. In 6 Munf. 3, it is said that, in consequence of the act of March 6th, 1821 (Acts 1820, c. 31, p. 31), the point determined in the principal case is no longer law.
      See principal case also cited in Galt v. Calland, 7 Leigh 600; Walters v. Farmers’ Bank, 76 Va. 18; foot-note to Wayland v. Tucker, 4 Gratt. 267.
      See further, monographic note on "Jurisdiction” appended to Phippen v. Durham, 8 Gratt. 457.
    
    
      
       Jesus College v. Bloome, 3 Atk. 263; Alexander v. Alexander, 2Ch. cases, 37, 11 Viner 243; Morrice v. Bank of England. Cases Temp. Talbot, 220.
    
    
      
       Largan v. Bowen, r Sch. & Bef. 299; Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Vezey, 571; Martin v. Martin, 1 Vezey, 211; Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Bro. C. C. 183; Goate v. Fryer, 3 Bro. C. C. 23; Hardcastlev. Chettle, 4 Bro. C. C. 163.
    
   JUDGE ROANE

pronounced the Court’s opinion.

The objection to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in this case is overruled, on this ground, (without deciding on any other,) that the pre-existing right of an assignee of a bond, to demand payment of the same in a Court of Equity, has not been merged, or impaired, by the statutory right, since given him, to sue at law, upon the assignment, in his own name; — but that the latter remedy is cumulative and additional to the former.

The Decree is therefore reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in upon the reports returned in the cause.