The Port Gibson herald, and correspondent. (Port Gibson, Claiborne Co., Miss.) 1848-18??, 1850-02-22
Burk. Watt & Co. JANUARY TERM.l85o.
vs.. Appeal from the Cham
/ r Conoer oor, Co,rt
]. B. Conger

Dui n +" az ~ ". JANUARY iERMto2o.
VS.. ADDeai from the Chan.
JB. Conger. eery Conrt. - ~
This bill stated that Burk, Watt. s. Co vera
commission merchants. and agents Of the com
piainant through a series Of years, and he placed
great confidence in them, especially as ia War.
lhathe liadseveral years transactions with them.
10 large amount and that upon sertenenr he
was indebted TO Buik Watt & Co. in tie sum OF
$4,000, for which he gave his note. Suit was
brought and Judgment rendered thereon, ia
1889 for S29,99O. That suit was enoinpd in
Chancery, and afterwards compromised and bill
dismissed by agreement Of the parties.
The bill further states that lie shipped his subsa.
quent crops OF Cotton, To Burk Watt & Co. aud
that the proceeds, after deductina expenses, were
10 be applied to the payment Of the Judgment.
From these shipments Burk, Watt ( Go in June
lS42, owed him IA balance Of $26.433, and in Ju-
y 1914; il had increased 10 $4,000, notu ith.
standing Watt induced complainant TO believe
that he still owed on the Judgment 800 600.
Complainant then owed various other debts,
some OF which were about to push him for paw
ment. Watt proposed TO complainant that the
Marshall should levy and sell ninety slaves, tU
satisfy the Judgment and agreed that lie W. uid
buy them IN, and return them To complainant To
remain III his employment, and paw the debt hG
owed. and by this means secure him a home.
Confding ii the statements of Watt, lie agreed
to tie sale. At the sale Watt purchased nearly
all the negroes, at p low price, so Inadequate
that he sacrlficel at least S3OO00
The bill further states that the negroes wpra
not returned to complainant, as agreed on bnt
that Watt prevailed upon him 10 leave home
with hts family for Kentucky, so as to leave
Watt in possession, 10 give col1r and plausihi.ity
TO The sale. That he did SO, when Wait took
the negroes to the place, and during his absence,
the plantation, lis homestead was bv the con-
trivance Of Watt sold under a deed Of fore
closure Of mortgage. in lsvor of Fisk, and az
ter sale, the slaves purchased by Watt were all
carried off by him.
Complainant charges that Burk, Watt s. Co,
tailed to comply with any OF the agreements 10
credit the Judgment with The amount of cotton
delivered by complainant, that in point Of fact
The judgment was satisfied at the time. of sale
under, il, and the sale thereupon void That
they charged usurous interest.
1t prays that the sale be set aside, and ac.
counts taken, and re-GelIvery Of The negroes
to complainant. 1t also pFays discovery and
accoun; OF the cotton delivered, and decree
Tor such amount as may be due complainant
TO this a general demurrer was filed to the
bill by Burk, Watt & Co, which was overruled
in the Court below, and defendant directed 10
answer in sixty days
From this decree an appeal was taken % this
Court, BY Burk, Watt g. Co
Sharkey, Ch. ]. held that it was principal of
equity subject to a very few exceptions, that
party to fraudulent transaction, can as com.
Piainant, obtain no relief in equity against it,
Standing in pari delictos the court will mol inter-
fere in .his behalf
This lrecludes the complainant from all re-
lief, touching the sale Of the negroes II Watt
was gully of fraud, the complainant was
guilty party to it, and only objects when lis
share OF The spoiis are refused him. His own
conduct has cut off from all claim upon the in
terFosiIion OF court Of equity. To this extent
the decree of the Chancellor was correct.
The matter oi account atands on different
basis. Il Burk, Watt 81 Co., are indebted in
the several sums set forth in the bill. tie lraudu-
lent conduct of The complainant touching the
sale onght not TO preclude him from relief in.
regard to the account. Equity has concurrent
jurisdiction with Courts of law, in reference 10
numerous and complicated matters Of account.
The fact that there may be remedy at law,
which is less convenient and less subservient 10
the ends Of justice, does not deprive the Court
OF Chaneery OF It's rights to interfere. In mat
ters Of account extending over variety of trans
actions, the remedy in equity is deemed moro
ample and complete, and tends TO prevent
multiplicity of suits. This part Of the bill
should therefore be answered, especially as the
defendants are called upon for discovery in re-.
gard 10 these matters. This account however
must be confined to The transaction which took
place subsequent 10 the Judgment.
The decree overruling the demurrer is affirmed
and the case remanded for further proceedings,
in accordance with this opinion.