Case ID: ark-terr-rep_1/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Tilford & Co., appellants, vs. Allen M. Oakley, appellee.
    A bill in chancery is not the proper remedy to enforce a decree in chancery for the payment of money, the remedy at law being adequate and complete.
    July, 1832.
    — Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court, determined before Thomas P. Eskridge and Edward Cross, judges.
   Opinion oe the Court. — This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of Hempstead county, pronounced in a cause wherein John Tilford & Co. were complainants, and Allen M. Oakley, defendant, dismissing the complainants’ bill. The complainants filed their bill to enforce a decree of the Bath circuit court of the State of Kentucky, decreeing the defendant Oakley to pay a specific sum of money. The only question for the consideration of this court is, whether a bill in chancery is the appropriate remedy to enforce a decree in chancery for the payment of a specific sum of money. We think it is not the proper remedy. The complaint had a clear and complete remedy at law, by an action of debt founded on the decree. Thompson v. Jameson, 1 Cranch, 282; Post & La Rue v. Neafie,. 3 Caines’ Rep. 22; Sadler v. Robins, 1 Camp. 253.

Recree affirmed.