Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-17
SUPREME COURT.
Condeused Decisions of the supreme
CourL, MAJ term, 1859, Reported for
the Appeal by II. Clay kfnS. Esq.

Jones procured q warrant from q msgls-
trate and had Psay arrested on 3 charge
Of forgery. While Pesy was in the Gus
t0dy Of an officer is was sgreed between
him and Jones and the complainRnts, L.
W. Porter and w. Il. Cherry, that Por-
ter aud Cherry should give to Jones
their joint note for $1,000, and that is
consideration thereof that Jones should
direct the relesse Of Psay from eusLodys
From the circumstances the Court ls
forced to the conclusion that the COM
pounding Of the felony wss the real con-
siderstion OF the note. Upon the exscu-
ton q the DOie Pesy was released by or
der OF Jones, and has never again been
arrested or prosecuted. D COM
menesd az action at law in the Circuit
Court, in which three mtstrisls AVE
beeR had, in consequence Of the faiiute
Of the juriCs ID sgre5 upon a verdict.
The defendants in IN action st law fled
this Dill IN Chsnesry, alleging substau-
daily the above facts, and that the note
is void for iliegslity OF consideration ;
+" that without q discovery Of some Of the
facts in relation TO said illegal contract
fIom Jones, which are exclusively with
il his knowledge and the knowledge OF
complainant, tkeif defense is greatly
trsmmeled, and . decision ia q court Of
law uD0n said cause is not likely 10 be OBJ
tanned, and e-0mplsiBants are greatly an
Doyed and harrsssed by the prosecution
Of said suit"
Toe prsyer Of the bill is hat the suit
At law bs peTpetuSliy eViJined aud Tor
general relief.
The dtfsndants to the bill demuyred,
aud assigned two cRuses Of demurrer A;
let. The existence Of al uaembsTrasseC
remedy at law and ii. That the COM
~plainants were equally guilty in the lie
gal transaction, and not entitled 10 any
relief in equity.
He'd, Andrews, Judge, delivering the
opinion of the Court That = note whose
consideration is the npoUnding o. q
felony, Is absolutely void. Vincent vs.
Groom, l Yer. 40.
The defect in aTemedy at law may be
either in some obstruction TO The pro
cee5icgs o. the Court Ct lsw, which the
aid OF & Court Of equity is required 10 re-
move; or il may be il the want OF power
in q Court Of law to give It's 1psli COM
Dlete aud adequate relief, which is with
in the power OF a Court O. Chancefy.
The latter defect is tqusliy with the for
mer ground OF ehsncery jurisdiction.
II the compiainsnrs case rests wholly
upon the necessity for disco7eIy, to ena-
Die him to make his defense st Law, thsn
ne must show by his bill that such dis
coveTy il nstsTiGl 10 his Ge;eDse. Bul
If the relief to which he IS entitled is SUI
stEn-ive refief beyond that which t
Court Of isw a give upon fult proof Of
al the facts, then he need not allege the
necessity Of discovery ~ $ ground Of ju-
reelection. AimOny VI. Eicks, 8 Head,
AZ.
In the elsss Of eases embracing the
present ore, the relief afforded by per-
petual'y erjciDirg the prosecution Of
suits upon lhe vold instrument, and by
Gbctseipg il to be delivered Up and gan
cs!et, l. deemed more efiCseious AID
ccmp!ets thar aBy mat can be offered by
q Court of law. / IL true, that = mai
Judgment Tor the defendant 10 a court OF
law ia 6 suit upou such Instrument,
would be q compete settlement OF the
osse, and would preclude the necessity TO
The defendant OF further relief in regard
10 it. But the plaintiff, the psyee, may
not choose to commence sUcn 3 suit. he
may hersss the defendant, the maker %
the instrument, with threats Of litigation
for an indefinite period, within the stat
ute Of limitations. Or, il 3 suit be al
resdy commenced, the plaintiff may not
OILY HaEA4E ALE. ~uCiGLO6ae AIAahk AA@
2 IS Of the suit, but may st his pleas
ure Withdraw il for the purpose Of sgsin
selecting his tribunal and fg time FOR the
commencement Of new litigation. 2StOry
Eq, sections 6S3, 100.
Equity viii decree the cancellation OF
void instruments though they be void on
their face. Jones vs.. ReyYs 10 Yer. SO
Almony VS.. Hicks, 8 Head Al J0hLsGn
- 49, . w. EgT EIg ~ F,n ~
CummiDgz, l Johns. Tn. 522. Though
this Is denied by come OK the authorities.
Story Ed , section 200, and cases there
cited. But where the invalidity does
not appear Oh the fscs OF the instrument
EQUITY ASS jurisdiction unquesiioned TO
decree Cancellation, though 3 defense
msy be made at law. And this jurisdic.
ton Ia Rot ousted by ths fact hat the
holder Of the instrument may have been
more diiigsnt In commencing his suit at
law.
Ii is urged ss so objsction to the juris-
diction OF the Chaneery Court that toe
Circuit Court having first obtained jnris-
diction Of the case its right TO determine
It is exclusive, aud cannot be interfersd
with by a Court Of Equity. This prinei-
pie il frequently applied in cases OF con-
fict Of Jurisdiction between two iDdepen-
0eutEnd equal tribunals exercising jaTis-
jictions OF 3 similar nature. Such was
the case OF Taylor vs.. Csryll, 20 How.
$50.
But it hiss no application 20 a case like
the present. where tie jurisdiction Of the
z trihunsl has Ks sole foundation in
the ~irabiiity Of the other TO DO complete
justice between the psrties. Suits pend
ing ia courts OF law sre eBj0insd by pro
cess from courts 81 equity every day, sDd
the prior iurisdictioa Of the legal Tribunal
hss never been cDBsidered a. su otise-
ton 70 the jurisdiction OF equity. Tue
relief sought ia the Chsucsry Court is
ia its nature substantially different from
the matter Of defense set up in the court
Of law. We rest the Jurisdiction in this
case upon the capacity Of a court Of
equity to afford more efic&clnus relief
than a court Of Law can administer, and
not upon the necessity for discovery.
The note is void for lsegsiity, and sny
party TO the transaction seeking q Fecov-
4 cry upon IL will DO repelled from y eourt
Of Justice. But will q court OF Equity.
tie parties to the note being poyttcipes
crfminiS, and in p0Ti dekicfo IN the iiie-
Ssl transaction, afford them active inter
pCsit.on to set asiie end esScel the H.
NEE&A. I'll ~ . - VIZ a@Lc ~
must do equity and these only shall re
csive the active aid OF courts OF jastice
who spproa b with clean hand; but
while tie rules Of law which courts are
bound TO enforce 10 civil esses have ref
ereDee primarily 70 the protection an6
enfoTcement OF private rights, they are
elso sanservisnt to the governing princi-
pc thst b safety aud best interests OF
Toe community are paramount u any
private interest. Therefore it IL that
there are May cases ia which were the
rights or interests OF the parties only
co~ncsrDed, courts would absolutely
refase them aid; yet, as the plblio
good demands > decision upon
their claims, the courts will enter
tain the cause and make the de-
eision. The decree is made upon the
facts and the Law Of the private righ', but
toe community Is g quasi party 20 the
cause, and for the projection OF the COM
munify courts msy overlook the indi-
vldual turpitude which has forfeited the