The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-05-06

SYLLABUS.
]. A judgment entered and rendered
a coufirmed, lin pursuance Of the law o
the State Of New Jersey,) by virtue o
and in pursuance OF q warrant OF attor
ney, being valid in the State Of New Jer
sey by virtue OF the laws thereof, Is enti
tied 10 full faith and credit in this STATE
within the meaning Of Section Of Arti
Gle 4 OF the Constitution Of the United
States.
Q. When a Court Of Equity has proper
ly taken jurisdiction Of cause against al
absent defendant, It must proceed to give
relief according to the principles oi
equity.
8. II the absent defendant appear and
answer, there may be personal decree
only against him, or there may be both o
personal decree and a decree subjecting
the attached effects.
4. A decree OF the Circuit Court will
not ordinarily be reversed because II
rendered 4 personal decree against the
non-resident debtor without disposing oi
the attached effects and determining other
questions in the cause at the same time
especially when the court cannot see that
the appellant is injured thereby.
CoTIlle CARRIER. plaintiff, below and appellants,
J.. G Gilmore and Othsr., dsiendautI below and
apPellecs.
SYLLABUS.
A verbal contract is made between A
aud B, which A claims was an agreement
on Be part, TO sink an oil we'll for him
and to be paid therefor reasonable
price out Of the first oil pumped from the
we'll, after which the well was to belong
10 A exclusively.-
B claims that he was 10 sink the well,
pay himself for the same out Of the frat
oil obtained, and thereafter the parties,
A and B, were 10 be equal partners in
operating the we'll. After B had bored
the we'll and occupied 1t sufficiently long
in his Judgment to more than psy all the
expenses Of the boring, A brought an ac.
ton OF assumpsit for the oil B had sold
TO which B plead non.assumpsit and filed
rs objects the costs which he had incurred
in boring the we'll. The Jury found O
verdict for A for certain sum, and after
some time A brings smother suit Of as.
sumpsit against B for oil pumped and
sold since the institution Of the first suit.
B then files . bill setting forth his yer.
sion OF the contract aud that 4 partner.
ship in all the oil pumped from the we'll
existed between him and A, praying q
dissolution Of the partnership, settle:
ment Of the partnership accounts and
asking an injunction to prevent the col.
lection Of the judgment obtained by A,
and also the further prosecution OF the
second action OF assumpsit. Proof was
taken showing the existence oil the part
nership as claimed by B.
Held: 1st. On motion to dissolve the
injunction so much Of 1t Us enjoined the
collection Of the judgment should be dis.
solved, as the verdict , aud judgment
conclusively established that the oil for
the proceeds OF which this judgment was
rendered was exclusively the property oi
A.
ID. That the verdict did not establish
that there was no partnership In the oil
pumped alter the Institution Of the frst
suit, even though it were proven ever sc
clearly that there was and is no claim that
any partnership 10 any Of the oil existed
except such as might have been formed by
the original contract, and that in the trial
OF the common law suit B defended him
self by claiming that this original con.
tract created a partnership in all the oil
pumped from the we'll and obtained from
the court an instruction that II the jury
believed such partnership existed they
must fnd for the defendant, and thui
rs the question Of partnership or nc
partnership was not directly involved ir
the pleadings il cannot, SO far as the oil
not sued for in that suit Is concerned, b
regarded as conclusively determined by
the verdict Of the jury and Judgment o.
the court, though il be shown by evidence
it was the controverted part on which
the verdict Of the jury must have been
found, nor ia, this verdict even evidence
Of the non.existence oi the partnership
8. The Court ought not to dissolve the
injunction prohibiting the prosecution O.
the second action OF assumpsit till the
hearing Of the case, n the question o.
partnership or no partnership ought to
be settled 10 the chancery suit, the deter
mining Of 1t there settling it finally and
preventing q multiplicity Of suits, al
neither the common Law suit pending OIL
others which might be brought from tint
TO time wonld conclusiyely detsrmin'
this question.