Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-17
September Term - Knoxville,
1870.
No. I5I.
VIM. McIin and VIM. b. Robinson VS.. 4. j.
hall


No. I51.
VIM. * NcIin and VIM. B. Robinson VS.. 4. ].
Marshall.
DUREss-JbgisdictiOn Of Lao and Equity con
clsrenL-The remedies IN duress are concur
rent in Law and Equity, and whichever first
takes Jurisdiction, obtains exclusive cognizance
II the case. Cases cited Lindsay IS. James, 3
Cold, At, Taylor VS.. Carlyle, 20 How. 5SS,
Broyies VS.. Arnold. MS. Knoxv. 1910, Porter
VS.. Jones Cold. s1S.
FROM GREENE.
Appeal from the Chsncery Court at
GreepeviIle; tried before ]. P. Swami,
Chancellor.
II. H. Ingersoll for complainant. Cited
l So. Eq. Jur., 239. Hay. rs, IS;
7 Yer. 81. 70; Cooke 266. 2 Hum. 545,
546, Meigs, 155, 157 and n. $50; 4.
Sneed 238; 8 Hum. 623; 2 Head CIT.
r. NJ. Barton for defendant
Deaderick, j., having been of Counsel
did not sit. Mcfarland, special j., sitting
in his stead, delivered the opinion of the
court.
OPINION.
This bill charges that the defendant
brought suit against the complainants be-
fore q Justice of the Peace of Greene
county, and obtained judgment; and from
this Judgment they appealed to the Circuit
| Court of the county, where the cause is
pending. That the suit was brought upon
a note executed to the defendant by the
complainants for $3.50. That the execu.
ton of the note was procured by the de
PENDANT causing and procuring States
warrant, to be issued sgainst the com
plainant McLin upon false and unjust
charge of robbery, alleged to have beer
committed during the war, by taking
horse from the defendants wife; and t
avoid this arrest the note was executed
under actual duress. To this bill there
was demurrer, upon the ground, among
others. that the COmplainants' defenceS {,
the action at law were clear and unem
barrassed, and that no reason is gwen TO
transferring the investigation of the caus,
TO Court Of Chancery.
The demurrer was Overruled, the bill
answered and proof taken, upon wh.cl
there was a final decree in favor of tn
complaiDants, enjoining perpetually tt
action at law, from which the defendan
has appealed.
The defences 10 the note, set forth i
the bill, are not purely of an equitable ma
! ture. That the note was executed unde
duress was defense that might well ant
properly have been made at law; aud
does not appear from anything stated i
, the bill that this defense at law was in an
= manner embarrassed. That note sue
: upon was executed under duress, was
: good defense at common law. Chit
3 | PL AT, 4S4. Relief may also be granite
v against contracts thus obtained in equity
c ! Story Eq. Jur., 299. And We hol
: that in a case of concurrent jurisdiction
that if the court of law first obtains juri
diction of the cause, the parties must !
e allowed to proceed to final judgment
f that forum, unless the bill presents ca:
/, in which the remedy at law is embarras
d ed OF inadequate, or in which the reli
e afforded in equity is more complete al
l. efficacious. Such we understand TO
o the principle established in the case
# Lindsey VS.. James and other
|, 3 Cold, AT. Taylor VS.. Carlyle,
d Howard, $50. Broyles VS.. Arnol'
:, decided at the present term, and mai
}. other authorities that might be cited.
Is would seem that different doctrine W
n applied in the case of Porter vs.. JoHe
Cold, SIS. However, his Honor Jud
Andrews, in delivering the opinion OF
n Court, fully admits the doctrine he
I, stated, and in that case sustained I
l. jurisdiction of the Chancery Court alo
a upon the ground that the Court of Ls
n was unable to render complete justice
tween the parties and that the relief