Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-15
SUPREME COURT.
condensed Decisions Of the supreme
Court, May term, 1863. Reported for
the Appeal by ii. Clay King. Esq. :

No.9 E w. Porter ct al. rs. John r
Jones, from the Hardin ChGncery Court
Zoe defendant, Jones, purchased OF one
Thomas Psay . promissory note for B23O0
supporting to be made by R9bt. Hardin.
for which Jones paid Peay $1,000. Har-
din denied having executed the note,
aud pronounced it q forgery. Thereupon
Jones procured q warrant from q magis-
trate and had Peay arrested on 3 charge
of forgery. While Psay vss In the eus
sody Of an officer it Wss agreed between
him snd Jeues and the eomplainants, E.
w. Porter and w. n. Cherry, that P0r-
Ter AID Cherry should give to Jones
rlIeir Joint note for $1,000, and that il
confederation thereof that Jones should
direct tia release of Pesy from custody.
From the circumstances the Court is
forced to the conclusion that the eom-
pounding Of the felony was the real con-
sideratiOn OF the note. Upon the sXscu-
ton Of the Eote Pesy vss released by Or
der of Jones, and has never again been
arrested or prosecuted. Jones COM
mencsd az action at law in the Circuit
Court, in which three mistTisls have
been had, in consequence OF the failure
OF tbs jnriEs to agree upon q verdict.
TIE defendants in an action at law fled
this bill in ChanceTy, alleging substan-
tally the above facts, and that the note
.is void for iilegsllty Of consideration /;
that without a disc very Of some OF the
facts 10 relation to eEid illegal contract
from Jones, which sEe exclusively With
in ais knowledge and the knowledge Of
complainant, their defense is greatly
trHmmeled, and q decision in a court of
law upon said czuse is not likely TO be OBJ
tanned, and compiainants are greatly IN
noyed and harrassed by the prosecution
of said suit"
The prayer Of the bill is that the suit
at lay be perpetually epjOined and for
general relief.
The defendants &c the bill demuTred,
and assigned two causes of demurrer /;
1st. The existence of an uuembsrrasseG
remedy st law and p. That the COM
piainants were eqIslly guilty in the lie
gsI Transaction, and not entitled to any
relief ia equity.
Held, Andrews, Judge, delivering the
opinion OF the Court; That = note whose
consideration ia the compromising OF 8
felony, is absolutely void. Vincent VS..
Grown, l Yer. 430.
The defect in 8 remedy st law may be
either in some obstruction TO the pFO-
ceedipgs of the Court OF law, which the
GA1 u : NCAAb VI equity u AG4AAACA " -
move; or il may be in the want OF power
in 4 Court Of law to give its final, COM
plste and adequate relief, which is With
in the power Of q Court Of Chaueery.
The latter defect is equally with the for.
mer a ground Of cha1cery jurisdiatioa.
II the complainspt's case rests wholly
upon tne necessity for discovery, to eRs-
ole him to make his defense at law, then
he must show by his bill that such dis
covery is material t. ais defense. But
il tins fe!isf 20 which he is entitled Is sub
etantive relief beyond that which q
Court Of Law ean give upon full proof OF
Ru tbs facts, then he need not sllega the
necessity OF discovery ss 8 ground Of jul
reelection. AimoDy We. Hicks, 3 Head, >
u
In the class of cases embracing the
present one, the relief afforded by per-
petualiy eDjolDiDg the prosecution Of
suits upOn tho yosd instrument, and by
deoseeing It TO be delivered 20 and can
eeled, is deemed more efheaciOus snd
complete than any hat 3 be offered by
a Court of law. Is is true, thst a-hnal
Judgment for the defendant in . court OF
Jaw in q suit upon such instrument,
would he u eomplets settlement OF the
case, and would preclude the necessity 70
the defendant OF further relief in regard
to it. But the plaintiff, the p3yee, msy
not choose to commence such a suit. He
may hsrsss the defendant, the maker Of
the instrument, with threats OF litigation
for an indefinite period, within the stat
ute OF limitations. Or, IL 5 suit be al
ready commences, the plaintiff may not
only hRrass the defendant during the
progress Of the suit, buG may at his pleas
urs Withdraw IL for the purpOee of again
selecting his tribunal and H. Tins for the
commencement OF new litigation. 2Story
Eq sections 500. 200.
Equity win decree the cancellation OF
void instruments though they be void on
their face. JONES' vS. Rsyy, 10 Yer. 50 (;
AlmoGy vs. HicEs, 3 Head Al Johnson
vs.. Cooper, 2 Yer. 53I; Hamilton vs..
Cummings, l Johns. On. 522. Though
this is denied by some OF the authorities.
2 Story Eq section 200, and G2sea there
cited. But where the inValidity Goes
not appear on the face of the instrument
equity ass Jurisdiction upquestioued to
decree cancellation, though a defense
msy be made at law. And this juFisdic
ton is not Ousted by the fact that the
holder Of the instrument may have been
mere diligent in commencing his suit at
law.
l. is urged SIS an objection to the juris-
diction OF the ChancerY Court that the
Circuit Court having first obtained juris-
dic@on CT the csse its right to determine
it is exclusive, and cannot be interfsred
with by 8 Court Of Equity. This pFInei-
pie is frequently spplied IN cases Of con-
l;ct OF jurisdiction between two iatepen-
deaf and equal tribunals exercising jGris-
6iotiOus of a siuiisr nature. Such was
the case OF Taylor VS.. Caryll, 20 How.
5S3.
But it has no application to a csse like
the present, where the jurisdiction OF the
one tribunal has lis sole foundation in
the Inability Of the other to DO complete
Justice between the parties. Suits pend
ing in courts OF law are eDjOlned by pro
cess from courts Of equity every day, and
the prior jurisdiction Of tbs legal tribunal
has never been considered as an Office
ton to the Jurisdiction Of equity. The
relief sought in tbs ChGpccry Court is
IL It's 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 efiescious relief
thsn q court Of law can administer, and
rot upon the necessity for discovery.
The note is void for ~iilegRlity, and any
party TO The -tTapsaetion seeking 3 recov-
cry upon il viii be repelled from s court
Of Justice. But viii q court OF equity,
the parties TO tbe note beiug pGTt5eipes
erinliafS, and in pGTi GelictO in the lie
gal transaction, afford them ective inter
POSITION to set aside and csJcel the IL
legal contract ? He who asks equity
must do equity ard those only shall re-
csive the active aid of courts Of justice
who sppros b with clean hands; but
while the rules of law which courts are
bound to enforce IN civil csses have ref
ereDce primarily to the protection and
enforcement OF private rights, they are
also subservient to the governing pEtnci-
pie that the SAFETY Snd best interests OF
the community are paramount to suy
private interest. Therefore il is that
there are many cases in which were the
rights or interests OF the parties only
concerned, courts would absolutely
REFUGE them aid yet, as the p2bie
good demands 3 decision upon
their claims, the courts will enter
tain the cause and make the de-
cision. The decree IS made upon the
- a.. - - H. vrt-af - .sUhk k,f