Evening journal., 1919-07-29
PLEA OVERRULED
IN HUDSON CASE
Chancellor Decision Illus
trates Difference Between
Law and Equity Courts
INTERESTING CASE
IN SUSSEX COUNTY

In the case Of Parker II Hudson
against Elizabeth A. Layton and jacob
West. sheriff, a case pending IN ihe
Court of Chancery for sussex county
Chancellor Curtis has filed am opinion
oyerruling a plea filed on behalf OF
Elizabeth A. Layton.
In the Superior Court for sussex
county at the suit Of Elizabeth \. Lay
ton. Judgment was entered against
Parker II. Hudson for want OF an ap-
pearance This suit was instituted 10
recover damages to woodland caused
by IRE. and at the time OF iis instilu-
tion another suit by Landreth L. lay
ton was pending In the Superior Court.
The bill Of complaint filed in the Court
Of Chancery alleged that Hudson was
mistaken in the name OF the plalnuh
when the summons was served In the
suit OF Elizabeth A. Layton, believing
70 TO be in connection with the suit OF
Landreth l.. Layton; that Mrs. Layton
had made certain verbal statements TO
him which led him 10 believe she would
not enter suit against him until after
she had seen him further; and that she
had told him he could disregard what
anyone else said or did.
After Judgment was entered in the
Superior Court a petition was filed on
behalf OF Hudson to have the judgment
vacated and 10 permit him 10 appear
and defend the suit, the averments OF
this petition being similar to the al
legations OF the bill in Chancery. The
Superior Court denied this petition, and
the bin in Chancery was filed for Me
purpose Of having the judgment set
aside, and 10 restrain further proceed
ing by execution issued on the judg-
ment.
To the bill in Chancery a plea was
filed on behalf of Mrs. Layton, in
which II was alleged that the matters
set forth in the bin had already been
passed upon by the Superior Court in
dismissing the petition above referred
TO-. and therefore that the Court Of
Chancery did not have jurisdiction in
the matter. A replication was filed on
behalf OF Hudson 10 the plea. in which
10 was claimed that the Superior Court
did not pass upon the merits Of the
petition. because 10 appeared by the
petition. as well as i'm the record in
the case, that the summons was regl-
! larly issued. served and returned. and
for this reason the petition was dis
missed. At the hearing a certified copy
Of the record. and proceedings in the
Superior Court was produced as an
exhibit.
The Chancellor held that the Court
Of Chancery had jurisdiction % vacate
judgment entered in the Superior
Court where the defendant in that ac-
/ tlon had failed to defend Il there hav-
/ ing been misled by the conduct or
] statements of the plaintiff i'm the suit.
/ In general the law court has iurlsdlc-
| tion as 10 all matters at issue I'm the
cause before 70. but that a court Of
/ equity had power 10 give relief FOR
matters extrinsic the merits Of the
cause itself, such as those alleged to
! exist in this case.
It did not appear OF record that the
| Superior Court had IN fact decided this
/ extrinsic matter. so that the Chancellor
! assumed that 70 had not decided a mat
| ter which 10 did not have Alright 20 de-
eide, though it had before it TIE mate
/ rial on which il could have mdae a de-
cision. This decision illustrates the
| difference between the purposes Of law
and equity courts. which supplement
each other without conflicting The
principle applied by the Chancellor is
one easily applicable 10 define the pow
ers and duties OF the two courts re-
speeding the vacation Of judgments en-
/ tered In the law court.