The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-03-13
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
IMPORTANT DECISION,!
Before fhe Chancellor for the Richmond
- E,Ss District.
PS.sev'yAcAproN, 1909
Eieolson & sHeth vs.. Hancock ct al.

FfCoIS0n q ucth w. L'GHcocf co az.
uPoN sIEI ron AN INJUNCTION
The bill in this case Was offered during the last
spring vacation for an injunction II was stated
IN the bill, that the plaintiffs the 25th Decem-
Der, 1908 leased Of David Ross and James Cur
RE. tract of land in the county of Henrico,
called the Deep Run Coal Pits, for seven years t;
that Ross two thirds owner of the land and
Currie one third that the rent was payable on
the FIRST day of January in each year; that Ross's
proportion was s CSC sc that in April 1906,
the plaintiffs not being indebted to Ross one sh-
ling, he proposed to them, that they should &C.
cept his drafts, commonly called accommodation
drafts, which he should either discount at bank or
with private individuals, K that he would always
take them up when they fell due, which they did
for his accommodation, until they determined to
renew no longer; that in consequence OF this
determination, they had to take up at bank two
drafts, one dated the 18th Tune, 1907, for S $50,
at SIX months the other dated the 10th Dec.
1907, for S 1900, at ninety days and both
knowledged by him to be accommodation drafts,
accepted and paid by them and in which they
had no interest. That on the LIST Jan. 1908, he
was indebted TO them in the sum of s l5o 81 ;
and on the 1st Jan. 1909, after giving him credit
for his part of tie rent and coal yard in Chester
field, the balance against him in their favor, was
S 1880 %, besides interest. That the defendants
some time in the year 1903, bought of the said
Noss his interest i'll the said coal lands and in
January last caused distress to be made in their
names, on the plaintiffs property, for the rent due
in the name OF the said Ross for the preceding
year; and they were compelled to execute re-
pievy bond with security for the same, payable
m three months that this distress was made at
atime, when they believe the said Hancock knew
that the said Ross indebted to them IN a
greater sum than the rent. That probably the
said Hancock supposed himself entitled to the
rent, because the said Nicolson one day in a 10
cose way, said to him, " he hoped he would be
indulgent as to tire rent" That the defendants
stand on no better ground than Ross, to whom
the plaintiffs would not be compelled to pay the
rent Of 1903, under the circumstances aforesaid ;
and therefore they prayed for an Injunction and
for general relief
BY the Ghoneello,
This is understood to be an appIica-
ton for an Injunction upon the ground, that no
rent was due at the time of the distress if this
was the fdct, II was a proper case for relief at
law but the plaintiffs, instead of availing them
selves of relief there have come here for it. after
availing themselves of the delay of the law by
giving replevin bond ; but this court cannot in
terPose under such circumstances and let it be
reeoilected, that where party has relief at law,
NE must avail himself of it, by making proper
defence, If he does not he closes the door Of e.
guilty against himself, unless he can shew, from
some peculiar circumstances, which must be true,
and not within his control, that he could avail
himself at law for otherwise every case may be
liable To be brought into this court.
Motion ofnied and
afterwards in the JuIe term renewed upop
supplemental bill stating, that the plaintiffs were
governed in their conduct by the advice of their
counsel, and Of which he gave a certificate, {" that
a court of chancery would afford relief notwith-
standing the reple'y bond'
BY the Chancellor:
The rule as laid down IN this case,
when this motion was frat made, has been recon.
nidcred and approved and now let me again
test this application, by that rule, namely, "that
bsseSs the Plainn5s can she-D from some peculiar
nrcSDrstHnces wAich mast be true, and NOT within
their control thar they could not be relieved at L1,u
they shall not be allowed TO into this court
or othertrise euer may be lube to be brought
.n as tor eXamplc--suppose one who never had
the small pox was sued at law in one of the com
mon law courts of this place, and on his way hi.
thcr 10 make his defence, he should hear that
that complaint was IN town and from fear of
taking 1T he should return, and Judgment was
to go against him, this court should, under such
circumstances, upon the usual proof, grant an
injunction but if upon the coming in of the an
swer, the facts were denied and not proved, the
injunction should DE diSsoi~ea !; and so in a case
where an injunction should be obtained, and up
on filing the answer, it should appear, that the
circumstances under which il was obtained, might
have been controlled, it should likewise be dis
soloeG, and the party left to the c-lsequences of
the law; because, in either case, his application
was made with anc!ean hands, against one of the
Plainest principles OF the court, namely, that
relief Shall never be afforded but to those who
come without cEanSe in themselves but where
the circumstances under which relief could not
be obtained atiaw, are true, and could not be con-
troiied, there relief in equity should be afforded
but IN this case, though the circumstances stated
IN the supplemental bill be true, it was within
the control of the plaintiffs, for they might have
had better advice from their counsel, if he had
given himself the trouble to examine the subject
upon principle for hold it to be very clear
case, that the errors OF n ttetent tribunal at
law, which can or might have been corrected
thcre, affords 40 ground for relief in equity
bat they mist be corrected by superior court in
the mode pointed out by law. I Call SAC, TERED
"a. Dish Hen. & Nun 139, TuTpin ~ Tho
mas, are authorities completely up 20 this point
much less then, can tie errors of counsel furnish
ground Tor relief in equity; for surely The party
who takes advice must abide the consequences Of
IT. THIS may be thought strict rule, but it is
Just one, and 1t viii be found in practice as bene
hciai as economical, since it will make parties
attend IN the fyst instance, to their rights al law
where the Witnesses generally must be in person.
and Carl be seen ut the same time that they are
eross-e*anliHed and heard, which is one Of the
sest means by which the truth can be attained Z:
but IN this court the mode Of proof is different !.
rhe testimony IS upon paper mode much more
liable to abuse than the former, and therefore if
Sheeld not he resorted to but where relief Cannot
be obtained by means of the law by Il strict adj
herence 10 this course, the ancient trial by Jury
which is preferable to all others, will be pTesery
ed and The saving to suitOrs on account of COSTS
will be immense for il is q fact that have dis
solved at least one hundred iniunctisps which