#### Dunn *v.*Fish and Another.

If a bond sued on at law had been satisfied by a settlement between the parties before the commencement of the suit, the settlement is a plain defence to such suit; and if the Court refuse to admit the defence, and render judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants remedy is not a bill in chancery to enjoin the judgment, but an appeal or writ of error.

The circumstance that a Court of law has decided a question of law erroneously, is not a sufficient ground for an application to a Court of chancery to enjoin a judgment in the suit.

ERROR to the *Boone*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This was a bill in chancery filed by *Joseph Fish*and *Addison Lane*against *Benjamin Bunn.*The object of the bill was to procure an injunction of a judgment at law which *Bunn*had recovered against the complainants.

The bill states that *Fish*-bought a tract of land of *Bunn*for 800 dollars, and received a warranty deed for the *same;*that in payment for the land, *Fish*conveyed to *Bunn*a tract *408^anc^ dollars, and that he and *Lane*gave their bond to *Dunn,*conditioned for the payment of certain judgments against *Dunn*amounting in all to 701 dollars and 58 cents, one of which was in favoui'-of *Cogswell*and *Cole*for 462 dollars and 85 cents; and that *Dunn*and one *Wright*gave their bond to *Fish,*conditioned to indemnify *Fish*against all liens on the land sold to him by *Dunn.*The bill further states that, at the time of said sale of land to *Fish,*there were several judgments against *Dunn,*which were liens on the land, besides the judgments which *Fish*was to pay as aforesaid, and that there was also a mortgage on the land executed by *Dunn*to the agent of the surplus revenue;’that *Fish*had paid the judgments against *Dunn*not mentioned in the bond of *Fish*and *Lane,*and the said mortgage also, amounting in all to 292 dollars and 42 cents; that an execution had issued on the judgment in favour of *Cogswell*and *Cole,*and that the land conveyed by *Fish*to *Dunn*was sold on the execution with other land of one of the execution-defendants, the execution-sales amounting to 112 dollars; and that *Fish*paid the balance due on said judgment in favour of *Cogswell*and *Cole.*The bill further states that afterwards a settlement of all said demands of both *Fish*and *Dunn*was made between *M‘Auly,*as *Dunn’s*agent, and *Fish,*by which *M‘Auly*was to transfer to *Fish*certain notes and a mortgage on an engine executed by *Barb*and *Williams to Dunn,*and to give up the bond of *Fish*and *Lane,*and *Fish*was to accept the same in satisfaction of his claims, and to give up the bond of *Dunn*and *Wright;*that in pursuance of said settlement, *Fish*gave up the bond of *Dunn*and *Wright,*and received a transfer of the engine, but *M^Auly*failed to give up to *Fish*the bond of *Fish*and *Lane,*alleging that the judgments named in it were not all paid; that a suit was afterwards brought by *Dunn*on the bond of *Fish*and *Lane;*that the Court would not admit said matters of defence in evidence; and that judgment was.rendered in favour of *Dunn.*The bill prays that said judgment be perpetually enjoined.

An answer to the bill was filed; exceptions were taken to the answer; and the exceptions were allowed.

The cause was submitted to the Court, and the injunction prayed for was granted.

*409
      *C. C. Nave,*for the plaintiff.

*J. Morrison*and *S. Major,*for the defendants.

We can see no ground for this decree. According to the bill, which may be considered as stating the facts, the of *Dunn*against *Fish*and *Lane*on their bond, and the claims of *Fish*against *Dunn*and *Dunn*and *Wright*were settled, but *Dunn*had failed to give up the bond of *Fish*and *Lane,*and had recovered judgment on it. The alleged settlement, by which the bond sued on was satisfied, was a plain defence to the suit at law; and if, as the bill alleges, the Court refused to admit the defence, the complainants’ remedy was an appeal or writ of error. The circumstance that a Court of law has decided a question of law erroneously, is not a sufficient ground for an application to a Court of chancery to enjoin a judgment in the suit. *2*Story’s Eq. § 897. — *Mar. Ins. Co.*v. *Hodgson,*7 Cranch, 336, *337.*— Simpson v. *Hart,*1 Johns. C. R. 95 to 99.

*Per Curiam.*

The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.