Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1874-03-25

in court, il to assume against him tbs very
point he may wish 10 contest. Again, in
the case Of Emeric '. Gilman, before cited,
it Is said:
"The inhabitants Of a county are cohbtant-
ly changing; those Tho contribute to the
debt may be non residents upon the recovery
Of the judgments or the levy Of the execution
Those who opposed the creation of TIL 9 liabill-
those, by whose fault the burden has been
imposed, may be entirely relieved Of the re-
sponsi5ility. 10 enforce this right
against the inhahitnnt Of a county would
lead to such multiplicity Of suits IS 10 rem
dor the right valueless."
We do not perceive, if the doctrine
commended for is correct, why the none y
might not be entirely made from prope ri y
owned by the creditor himself, if he should
happen to own property within the limits
| Of the corporation, of sufficient value for
that purpose. WI aHar audi
The difficulty and embarrassment arising
from an superintendent or contribution
among those bound to make the payment,
We do not regard as q serious objection.
Contribution and superintendent are rec
ognized heads of equity jurisdiction, and
if it be assumed that process could issue
directly against the citizens to collect the
debt OF the city, court of equity could
make the apportionment more conven-
iently than could court of law.-l Story
Eq. Jur., Sec. 40 and UPWARDS
We apprehsnd, also, that there is some
confusion in the plaintiffs proposition,
upon which the present jurisdiction is
claimed. It is conceded, and the author
| tiles are too abundant to admit question,
that there is no chancery jurisdiction
| where there is an adequate remedy at law.
The writ Of mandamus is, no doubt, the
regular remedy i'll a case like tbs presen t,
and ordinarily it is adequate and its re-
suits are satisfactory. The plaintiff al
Ieges, however, in the present case, that be
has issued such writ on three different
occasions; that by means of aid afforded
by the Legislature and by The devices and
contrivances set forth in the bill, the writs
have been fruitless; that, in fact, they
have afforded him no remedy. The remedy
is in law and in theory adequate and perfect.
The difficulty is in its execution only. The
want Of a remedy and the inability to OBJ
tain the fruits of a remedy are quite dis
tinct, and yet they are COMPOUNDED in the
present proceeding. To illustrate: the
writ of ha6ere faciGs possessionent is the es
tablished remedy TO obtain the fruits of a
Judgmen ut for the plaintiff in ejectment. II
is afull, adequate, and camplete remedy
Not many years since there existed in cen
trail New York combinations Of settlers and
tenants, disguised as Indians, and calling
themselves such, who resisted the execu-
ton of this process in their counties, and
so effectually that for some years no land
lord could gain possession of his land
There was perfect remedy at law bu,
through fraud, violence, or crime its exc.
cution was prevented. 1t will hardly be
argued that this state of things gave au
thority to invoke the extraordinary aid OF
a Court of Chancery. The enforcement Vi
the legal remedies was temporarily sus.
pended by means of illegal violence bu
the remedies remained as before. 1t wa,
the case of . miniature revolution. The
courts of law lost no power, the Court o
Chancery gained noue. The present case
stands upon the same principle. TIE lega
remedy is adequate aud complete, and time
and the law must perfect its execution.
Entert aiming the opinion that the plain
tiff has been uureasonably INSTRUCTED il
the pursuit of his legal remedies, we
should be quite willing to give him the aid
requested, if the law permitted it. We
cannot, however, find authority for SO do
ing, and we acquiesce in the conclusion Of
the court below, that the bill must be dis,
missed. Judgment affirmed.
Mr.. Justice CLIFroRD-I dissent from the
opinion of the court in this case upon The
ground that equity will never suffer a trus,
to be defeated by the refusal of the trustee
to administer the fund, or on account of the
misconduct of the trustee, and also because
the effect of the decree in the court below
if affirmed by this court, will be to give ju
dicial sanction to fraudulent reputation
of an honest debt For which reasons, as il
seems to me, the decree of the subordinate
court 81 ould be reversed
Mr. Justice SwAYNE concurring
+. s# . D. W. MIDDLETON,
sa Sid .r. Clerk Supreme Court, U. s.
LIZ The Queens Speech.