The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1860-04-25

in writing was entered into between the
parties, whereby, the appellee agreed to
sell to the appellant tract OF land, and
four named slaves, upon condition that
the appellant should then take possession
of the property, and enjoy the same, in
consideration of the sum OF money adj
vanced by him, and that the appellee
should have the use of the money from
year to year, but that the property trans
ferred should not be redeemed until the
lst January, 1853; and that when the re-
demption should be made, the appellant
should take the land at the sum of one
thousand dollars in part payment, and
that the appellee should execute a deed
to him for the same in fee simple; and
upon payment of the entire debt to the
appellant. that the property was to be ire
turned" to the appellee. The bill alleges
that the slaves were worth annually, SIS
or $3.50, and that the land was worth the
$4,000, the sum loaned, for which sum or
Whereabouts, it was sold by the appellant,
who also kept the four slaves for one year,
and then returned them to the appellee,
except one, which was afterwards returned
to the.appellee on his paving to the appel
liant the sum of $1,000. The bill alleges
part of the appellant, and that he Is indebt-
ed to the appellee a considerable sum,
and prays an account of the transactions
between the parties, and decree for the
sum to be thereupon found due the ap-
pellee.
1t appears by the pleadings and proofs,
that on the 26 march, 1853, the appellee
conveyed the land to the appellant, for
the sum of one thousand dollars, in pur-
suance Of the original agreement, and on
the 9th March, 1853, he executed an alb
solute bill Of sale to the appellant, for
one of the slaves embraced in that agree
ment, in consideration of the sum of one
thousand dollars, and that settlement of
the previous transaction then took place
between the parties. But it appears that
the appellant agreed either at that time,
or shortly afterwards, to reconvey that
slave to to the appellee upon his
paying to the appellant the sum of $1,000,
within three years from that time. The
sum was paid within the time prescribed,
and the slave delivered to the appellee,
whereby, the entire transaction between
the parties was settled. This bill was
filed for the purpose of recovering from
the appellant, the amount of usurv
he received from the appellee by means
of the use and possession of the slaves,
and by the sale Of the land, and also by
money paid by the appellee:
The only question which we deem il
necessary to consider is, whether the case
is one proper for the interposition of a
| Court of Equity. That question is pre.
sented by the demurrer to the bill, and il
also arises upon the consideration of the
| Il L.,
The case is simply bill to recover back
money paid by the appellee upon an US
| urious contract, which had been finally
settled between the parties and was at an
end. There appears to be nothing in il
calling for the interposition of equity, ex
cept it be the matter of taking an account
of the value which the appellant had re
ceived from the appellee. And that doe
not appear to call for the aid of Cour
of Equity.
The value of the land and the hire o
the slaves, were matters easily susceptible
of proof before jury in an action at law
and there could have been no difficult,
in the jury ascertaining the amonn
which the appellant had received there
from; and, adding thereto, the amour
which the appellee had paid in money
and crediting the appellant with the prir
cipal and legal interest on the money ad
vanced by him, as the bill proposes to dc
the amount which the appellee had ur
Justly paid, could readily have been ascel
tanned There is scarcely case in tn
Circuit Court involvinga question of sci
off, which would not be as difficult to &C
Just as the account in this case. Tn
remedy at law appears, therefore, to b
clear and ample, and of course Court G
Equity should not interpose.
1t is true that Courts of Equity hav
! jurisdiction to grant relief against usI
: rious contracts. But this is only whe
there are circumstances calling for the il
! terposition of that Court, and when til
/ powers of Court Of law are not adequat
t to render complete justice to the part
2 complaining.-Bard VS.. Jones S. & \
5 36S 387 Smith VS.. Walker ID. l3I Their
S areno such circumstances in this case an
S indeed it appears simply to be an action |
: recover back money paid illegally
e wrongfully, and depending like any 9th,
r such action upon proof of the claim
4 fore the jury.
D There was, therefore, no ground for in
e isdiction in equity, and the decree mu
be reversed and the bill dismissed.