Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-01-04
A true copy, Test; c, W, NELSON, Clerk,
lIanse Is. Ricgs and VIE.

Aayse IS. Bggs and VIE,
This vas an Injunction bill. The complainant al
leges in substance that he agreed to confess iudg-
ment in favor of the defendants, before a justice,
on certain notes executed by him, payable to Mrs.
Biggs which agreement Was written on the back Of
the notes. And pursuant to this agreement ludg
ments were accordingly entered up by the Justice,
Complainant further alleges that it was expressly
agreed at the time, that he should have the bene-
fit of the lawful stay Of eight months, without being
required to give any security: and upon the faith,
that this latter stipulation would be observed he
consented to confess Judgment. The bill further
charges that soon IS the two days, allowed for
giving security for the stay of executors. had ex-
pred the defendants caused executions to be issued
and placed in the hands of i'm officer who pro-
ceedng to enforce the same. II is further charged
that the purpose OF defendants. in procuring the
foregoing agreement to be made, was to deceive and
dctl4qd the complainant The bill seeks to enioin
the executions 4ntil qfter the expiration Of eight
months from the rendition Of the iHdgment.
A. the appearance terI9, the defendants put in
their answers in which they expressly deny that
any agreement whatever was made in regard to TIE
stay of execution and that the whole extent of the
agreement made, was, that complainant should con
fess judgment. Mrs Biggs-wIlh whom the agree
ment was made-states, that the complainant en-
Gorsed the agreement on the back Of the note as
follows: e l confess judgment on the within note
and clam a stay Of eight months" She further
states that she cannot read, and that the endorse
ment was not read to her snd she had no knowl-
edge that the words, in respect to stay of execu-
ton had been added and denies having assented to
any such thing.
UpOp filing the answers. q uotiOn was entered to
Dissolve the injunction and on ths hearing. tt-
Chancellor allowed the tGo.iui and dissolved the IN
junction, and also dismissed tie bill,
il Is argued for the complainant that the Chan
ceIlor erred IN dismssing thebI at the appearance
term. and upon motion to dissolve the injunction.
We do not think 80. in view 4 the whole case. It's
Obvious there is no equity n the compliments ia
vor If he were able to prdre a Uerbal agreement,
that he was to have the bneit of a stay of eight
months without securty; such proof would avail
hiu nothing. in the face Of tbF written memorandum:
the evidence would not be admissible, becaUse@con-
Trajectory of the writing. The claim of stay of
eight months1-aH other AFFECTIONS aside-cannot
be understood TO imply thd scGJT;tg vas TO 1e dis
pensed Witi-tB contrary would be the legal impll-
cation But again: the objection that this agree
ment-if valid in other resIscts-was made with the
wife. in the absence. and Without the knowledge of
her husband in whom the kgal interest was would
perhaps, be a sufficient dGknce to the bill
1t is clear therefore. thd there is no substantial
error in the decree or proceedings in this eau G. If
it were admitted that the cause prematurely
heard and the bill dismiss ,-to remand the cause,
for that reason could haze no other effect than to
produce delay and increas costs. Decree affirmed.
/ ''- AEEE~Ey.
A true c1py TEST C.h, Nelson, OlerR,