The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-01
For tbr eenauirer.
IN r. .Js.peyisy Coay. Of ,cAdncery, FER the Rich
4esnd Di,isiet, Eel T1ynt. 1893.
ALprRsoM VS. BsecAns. ct. 81.

riff of Prince Edward county
Biggars, to avoid the delivery of the negroes,
while the deputy sheriff held the process, sold
them to the other defendants Except the tepu-
~ sheriff, who purchased, Knowing the circum-
stances and The deputy sheriff in satisfaction of
the process aforesaid, received the prices Of the
negroes, as fixed by the verdict of the jury, AS
well as the damages and costs.
And this bill! as brought to set aside the sales,
and to recover the negroes, and their AHes since
she veydictet law; rs also another negro who
born in the mean time as also the money recei-
we'd by the deputy sheriff for the damages and
costs.
The defendants by Pea, objected to the juris-
aiction THE court
BY the Chancellor
1.-THE law aif,ris an adequate
remedy in this case, the application to this court
Is improper but If the law does not, this is them
the proper court.
The counsel differed upon this subject. Col.
Daniel, who lives nearest tn the common law
scene of action, eontended with great force, for
the jurisdiction of the common law court br;,
Mr.. Munford, who lives neare st to the scene of
action here, maintained, with equal force, the ju-
risdicton OF this court and. among other things
said, that by coming into equity, the plaintiff avc
ded circuity of actions ut law.
will not indulge belief that the geogra phi
cal situation of counsel, can have any influence
upon their Judgments, with respect 10 the juris-
eiction OF either court but, be this as it may,
the corr, must upon principle and here let
me premise, that court of chancery should, TO
be really useful to the people, confinc itself to
those cases, where party is without remedy, or
relief, fG,r unless from circumstance which,
II true, could not be controlled, he was unable TO
make his defence, at law: because, it is obvious
TO my mind, and raust be to all those who know
any thing about the mode of proof, and .f rriai,
in the two courts, that the difference is greatly in
favor of common iaSr trial for there, Justice
-, I,- t.l
witnesses, the jury, and dsinterested court are,
or may be, looking at each other, at the same
time and the smallest deviation i'm wit
ness, can be detected, in cross. examination. IN
on the spot: nay, to see witness, is often of
more importance, than to hear him for his looks
sometimes eonduct.ouT senses to n conclusion,
which his words would not but, &, this court
the parties and their witnesses are only known
upon paper; and fn1ustice, more or less, on that
account, must be, in almost every sentence.
When the court of chsncery first took its rise,
IT was upon those principles: but. the power of
the court resting generally in the hands of an midi
yidua, the court has gradually been incroaching
upon the common.law courts, until, it would re-
ally seer that 1t now claims jurisdiction in &C m
mon, with those courts, in all cases whatsoever :
such IS the effect OF power in the hands of an in
dividuat but the tue course for a chancellor is
never to lnterpose, if the matter can be adjusted
at law : and the best interest of the people re.
quires, that this rule should be adhered to and
more especially in republic like ours where. il
the science of free government is not better I'm.
dersteod, in theory, than in other countries, it is
in practice, and of this, we proudly boast & the
fathers of their country have recorded in the sa
cred declaration OF our rights, "that in coatro-
SerSieS respecting prooe,fv, AID s:its 6ct4oee,
man and man, the ancient trial BY jury, is p,cty-
bic to any other, snd ought to De held sacred - all
mustagree, that 1t is one of the first duties of,he
magistrate, to do his part in the preservation of
this grand feature of our q blme CONSTIrU-
TON And, therefore, as we all know, that
our county courts, generally speaking, are COM
posed of the most respectable citizens among us.
and our superior courts of law, filed with gen.
tlernen not less distinguished for their morals,
than tor their talents, that if parties will attend
10 their rights, in those courts, and should not.
from any material circGnistance, be able to obtain
7u.tiSe, liz the first trial, another may be had be-
fore the tribunal, there must, after this, be
but little pretencc for coming into equity but,
If in those courts, the parties will not attend to
their rights, they may by their o1om negligence,
close the door OF equity against themselves for
ever: and so understand the court of appeals,
in the case OF Terrell VS.. Dick. Call, $40 and in
Turpin vs. Thomas, Hen. and Munf. 1S9
These cases deserve attention they appear to
me, TO reinstate, upon correct principles the ORR
xinai line, between the courts of common law and
Shancery, which if not b!otted out, was much
impaired by the decision in Barrett VS.. Floyd. in
the year 1890, Call, 531, and all that class of CO.
ses, which followed upon like tyincibics but
which Inow consider overrtieJ by the brinci-
PIES, as laid down in the cases before cited, OF
Terrell SIS. Dick. and Turpin VS.. Thomas, which
shall take for my guide.
1t may be great seif.denial for some men "a
refuse themselves the exercise of a power, o
which, they have so many examples, but NV mind
is differently organised and my Impressions are
Mat every public character, should pursue tie
dictates Of his own deliberate judgement, adhey.
ing the constitution, and cogf5yssing TO The Laz.s
and acting for the best Interest of his country al
all times, without being under the Influence of a
ny personal consideration whatsoever atloupl
it may effect eyen the interest of the 6liy, as was
intimated, by Mr.. Hay, in his argument of tho
case, the other day, of Nicolson 8, iIeth vs. Han
cock ct al. an expression which / was sorry Il
hear fall from ttat gentleman.
coed to examine the plaintiffs case.
At law he recovered all the negroes in contro.
versy ,hat were then in being aud after going
through two appellate courts, with like success
he issued his execution, which was thwarted h,
Che defendants but this should not subject them
TO suit IN this court because, il was, & still ia
perfectly in the power Of the plaintiff to- Obtain
due execution OF ths common law process, ne
eessary TO enforce his judgement, without In,
aud OF this coert: for, there can be no doabf bu
that the court oflsw would as It sGl will, see Z,
the due execution Of its own process and not .rr
fer il to be abused. The plaintiff then mich
have asked leave, as Ire still may, TO uuqsh liz,
writ OF distri'gGs only and he might, as he still
may, either by arRc of court, OF bv scjyr Ereja.
at law, obtain an order G,r the identical nerross
IN the hands Of the purchasers, without go;n,
through all the tedious forms of the law agan