Case ID: va_14/html/0936-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yancy v. Fenwick.
    June Term, 1809.
    Bill for Injunction — Relief at Law. — In a MU for an Injunction where relief might have been had at law, the plaintiff must state why he did not defend himself at law.
    The bill in this case was brought to be relieved against part of a judgment obtained at law on a bond, executed in August, 1797, on account of some payments admitted to have been made, posterior to the said bond, but before the judgment, without even stating a reason why the defendant did not defend himself at law.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Clay tor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.
    
   By the Chancellor.

This is a plain case. The plaintiff might have defended himself at law; but, without assigning a reason why he did not, he comes into this ' Court, as if it were a matter of right. But in that he is mistaken; for this Court can only give relief, where the law affords none; unless the party, asking for it, could *not avail himself at law; and then the circumstances must always be stated in the bill, that the Court may judge of them.

Bill dismissed with costs.