Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1843-12-16
Saturday, December Is, l843'
CHANCERY.
LEXINGTON, MISSISSIPPI.

Circuit Courts. In our last article we al
tempted mainly to show that it would be-
more conveniet and cheap than the pre-
sent system. We will now present the
question in another light.
A common objection to giving the Cir.
cult Courts exclusive Chancery jurisdic-
ton is, that the Judges would be II equal
% the task. The argument proves too
much, for if it be true they should not ex-
ercise equity powers in any case, yet II
will be seen, by reference TO the Consti-
tuition and laws Of the States that they
possess chancery jurisdiction in sundry
matters. Is not that law.giver highly
culpable who, whilst he taunts an officer
with his unftness to perform certain gen.
eral duties, imposes upon him the dis
charge of part of those same duties, ---ot
will it for a moment be contended that
abuses, or wrong decisions in a particular
class of cases, are we'll enough, yet intol-
cradle in others! Surely our opponents
have not well weighed the force of their
argument.
Again the Circuit Judges may grant
injunctions in all cases. There is no
power in the hands Of the Chancellor that
should be exercised more delicately than
this, and by which irremediable injury is
so often done.--By it proceedings in other
courts may be arrested, perhaps until teS-
timony necessary TO establish Just claim
is lost-by it, liens may be suspended,
until the security becomes greatly depre
cia.ed-by it, property may be placed in
dishonest hands, without sufficient bond |
and the rightful owner in instances there
by seriously damaged. The avocatoqs
of individuals may be not unfrequently |
stopped for time on himsy grounds, and
their prospects possibly forever blasted.
So it will be seen that this is a tremend.
GUS power and may be most baneiully ex-
exerted--to The utter ruin and prostration
Of many. But we do not attack tit is
essentialto chancery proceedings. With
out it Chancery Court would be power
less. LISA preventive means, and Courts
Of equity do more by staying the hand of
the wrong doer, than by compromising af-
ter the injury is inflicted. Deprive them
of the right of granting injunctions and
Sampson is shorn Of his strength. Why
shen it may be asked do you recite the
evils that sometimes flow from injunc-
tons! First, to show that he who denies
the capacity of Circuit Judges 10 discharge
the general functions of Chancellors, and
ye, permits them to grant injunctions is
guilty Of great acknowledgement crime
(if conscientious in the belief of their fee
bleness) in endowing them with such
powers Of mischief--it is like turning
loose mailman armed with a deadly
weapon. But we have another purpose.
Necessity aud convenience require that
the Circuit Judges should issue iniunc-
tons and they do so in nearly all cases.
II the suit was returned before themselves
they would be extremely cautious in grant.
ing them. All love to be consistent and
they would know they would have to act
upon them again, and would be compelled
to dissolve them, if they had been improp.
eriy allowed.-If they had erred their
mistake would be pointed out with no
sparing hand. The errors Of Judges are
legitimate subjects Of discussion ana law
yers are apt to comment upon them, in a.
severe and fearless manner. This then
would be great check upon improvi-
dent injunctions. Whereas under the
present system Circuit Judge grants
an injunction and never expects to see, or
hear Of il again. It is therefore hot rea-
sonable to suppose he will act with that
degree Of circumspection, as if his act had
10 undergo second searching and public
revision before imself.-Further if he
had general Chancery jurisdiction he
would become more familiar with Chan
Gerry rules and practice, which would be !
another safe guard against errors. Ia
lis said Circuit Judges are not familiar %