Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-09-06
Harpes rs. ess, and NeEInth.

This bill was brought to Jver sum be7nging
the alsdgd have beel wronguy received By
deendeut Gates McErath, under color Of Vnd pro
cedng before Justice Of the Peace The deesd for
the cmpa nant against AoErah but dsnssed the bill as 70
Gates and from the latter part Of the decree tie complainant
psasd.
The facts appear to he That en- the March, ls55
William Groom p ced in the hands Of the dfenfa McErh
aOrneyat aSl for collection three promor notes. W.
BxAt each for the OF S62, and took his
ce pt or same the shortly afterwards
"a April 1855 Groom sold said notes for valas
bic co Israt OIL an,nt; gnle there ept
McEierath, i@ foIloSiLE assign Gent:
sFor value received assign the within claims to W. R.
Hynss anddo guarantee the s'lveneY Of the Sane April ID
IL alleged in the b that eE rah notified Of tn. ss
sgnmsnt Of the notes by Groom to the complainant.
The allegation denied by McErh in his ansSer but the
fully proved by Groom he in person. gave noe
MeRrah the the notes. and directed him pay the
Money when collected TO complainant promised to
DO AMI the testimony Of Groom corobeted by letter
from McEath to complainant under date Of 9TH ls53
4 copy which is st forth in the record.
appears, that after the money due upon said notes. Rad
% on the latter on tie oh Of March s5 Il the nsan DE-
itndant Gates Judgment creditor Groom
hGd rece ed az orney Croou and had his hands,
Of S4s o. and hat be lad received from Groom written
ment, justice ud agsinst the defendant
McErath gGTAss fI $500 95 the amount Of Gates
and tbereupon McEirah paid laid 10 Gates
For the defendant GATES it is insisted tha other questions
Adethe judgment on the gArnhment so long ~ reuzis ed
p iecon him against the relief sought ny the
complainant This Is denied by the council and
argued that Ih dsndIu liable 70 refund the
upon the gToque tai the ssrushrent p ocenE was To and
secondly admitted TO be Otherwise, s that
the processing was ap was set on foot
with full the psrt Of GATES, that The money belong
the complainant; and not to Groom that ne eannot be
mted o retain il.
The basis the g4ri supposed julgmsnt ooinsi
by against Groom and RUSSELL mJtun, before Justice
the Peace, for moRy paid by the former security o the
latter. The 50 called Judgment is as follows;
In this ease, give judgment In favor Of W. Gates, for
saii on jud gment No. 436f According the settled
course decisions this Court the fregOing judgment
simply void 1t has been uniformly held at, these
proceedings enough appear upon the record to show hat
the has Jurisdiction; alt likewise all the acts
to art-oze tie judgment Ne assumed therein 10 Yerger
Rep 3O-3i4 Accorui this rule the judgment in quts-
ton Of all tn iuis,tes valid udment
It is nuhy, and OF sord the dsudent
protection.
But even judgment valid the deendent Gates could
no the circumstances Of resist the decree sought
against 1t sufficiently establsAsi, by the allegation
taking the process OF gamshm=n the de en- liant Gates
quiTed information from conversation with the complainant
fund in the hands Of ErIh aud that psnant claim
cd said fund belOnguV lin, by purchase tIOn Groom
With knoEledg Of this fact thus ACQUIRED, appears from
the record Gates resorel the proceeding before toned
appropriate tile fuad the satisfaction Of bis demand
ayainstCrOOm and Russell.
he be permitted 10 DO 1t would BE- in the view
urt OF equity rights Of complainant
TIE money belonged 10 the Groom had
and creditor C his rad rbtOndr cor Of process
o-Ywi-etO himself OF IL, and doing
fsnd.nt Gates must he regarded in equity having Ove
and holding il, The money the complainant He
therefore, clear liable refund il And the esult wOu
perhaps be the same, he had Ons possession
the money ia gnoraucs u the fact that teo1ged to the
painsnt
The decree will lever ed and adecee rendered for the CON
painant hCKINEsY.
Tese ". D. WEIGH, Clerk