Case Name: James Hill v. James S. Jones
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-12
Citations: 2 Dev. Eq. 101
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Hill v. James S. Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 101–111

Head Matter:
James Hill v. James S. Jones.
Where a judgment on a bond was obtained, and after a return of not satisfied, became dormant, and ten years afterwards was revived, when the defendant, having discovered evidence that the bond had been paid, obtained a verdict, establishing that fact, upon an issue directed for the purpose, it was held, Edeut, Judge, disseutiente, that as the evidence was satisfactory to a jury, the lapse of time was not a bar to the relief.
This bill was hied in September 18-28. ít charged that the plaintiff gave his bond to James Jones, the defendant’s testator, for ¿244 3 6, in December 1811, payable in ten clays : that at three several days he made payments, the last of which Jones acknowledged to be in full; but excused himself from then delivering up the bond, by saying that he was too busy and was going from home, so that he could not look for it, but would surrender it, whenever called for. The bill then charged Jones’ death, and that he appointed executors, of whom the defendant was the survivor ; who finding the bond uncredited and uncancelled, brought suit on it and recovered judgment in August 1818, and issued an execution, which was returned “ not satisfied” by their consent: that the plaintiff informed the executors, while the suit was pending or before, that he had paid the debt, and they declared they had no doubt of it, but that, being executors, they were compelled to sue, and leave him to his defence : that the plaintiff employed an attorney to defend the suit, who pleaded-to it; bnt he eould not support his defence, be;-. cause one John Sessoms, the only witness within his knowledge, who could prove the payments, died either before or immediately after the suit was brought; and in consequence thereof, his pleas were withdrawn, and judgment by default entered : that only one execution ever issued, and the judgment became dormant. The bill then charged, that some time after the judgment, and upon the circumstances becoming known in the neighborhood and much talked about, one Matthews told the plaintiff, that he heard the testator, a short time before his death, say to him (the plaintiff) that the bond was paid, and that he would give it up when convenient. The plaintiff then charged, that from the execution not being issued again, he entertained the belief, that the executors were convinced the claim was unjust, and had abandoned it; and furthermore, that he w-as advised by persons in whom he had confidence, that there was no danger of the claim ever coming against him, and that he was ignorant in such matters, and rested satisfied therewith — especially, as he thought, if it ever should be revived, he could defend himself upon the testimony of Matthews.
It is then charged that a sd.Ja'. to revive was brought, and judgment obtained in May 1828. Upon the trial the plaintiff offered Matthews as a witness, who was rejected as incompetent to prove a payment made before the former judgment.
The defendant in his answer stated, that the bond was found among the testator’s valuable papers, and that there was nothing to show, that any part of it had been paid. He admitted that the plaintiff always said to the executors, that he had paid it; but denied, that they told him, they had no doubt of the fact, or intimated to him that they would not enforce the collection. On the contrary, he alleged that although they did not, out of common courtesy, flatly contradict his positive assertion, they gave him distinctly to understand, that nothing could be done in the matter, but in due course of law : and as to the. defendant’s own knowledge or belief, he said that he knew nothing, and that he believed that most proba bly the debt was wot paid ; for he was altogether ignorant that the plaintiff was able to make payment. He further averred, that the execution was not suffered to lie either from motives of compassion, or a belief that the debt had been paid, but solely because the plaintiff was unable to satisfy it7 until just before the last suit was-brought.
The plaintiff filed the deposition of Matthews, who swore that he heard the testator at his own house, a few weeks before his death, tell the plaintiff, that the bond was fully paid, and that he would give it to him. if he would apply in a few days. He also deposed, that he gave this information to the plaintiff just before the last judgment was taken. The testator died in 1816.
Upon this case and this evidence, the court below submitted the following issue to a jury : whether or not the bond was paid to the testator; who found, that it was. And thereupon, his Honor Judge Dantee decreed a perpetual injunction, and the defendant appealed.
Hogg- for the defendant,
insisted, that since courts of of law had been in the habit of granting new trials, courts of equity refused to enjoin judgments at law, on account of any accident or surprise at the trial, unless the party against whom the judgment was rendered, was prevented by the frand of his opponent from availing himself of testimony ; and that a delay of ten years, before an application for the interference of a court of equity, deprived the plaintiff of all right to it.
Gaston, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Hall, Judge.
I think the decree made by the Superior Court ought to be affirmed. The argument of most strength againstit is the length of time, thatelapsed after the first j udgment was obtained upon the plaintiff's bond in the year 1818, until the filing of this bill. However, I do not consider that sufficient. The plaintiff, it is true, has not informed us of the time when he first discovered the testimony of Matthews, which he ought to have done. If the discovery was made shortly after the judgment was obtained, it was to be expected, that an earlier ap~ plication would have been made to this court for relief against it. This may have been omitted thro' ignorance, or from a belief, that the plaintiffs at law would not proceed further upon it, after being made acquainted with Matthew's testimony. Be those things as they may, the time that has run since the judgment was obtained, until this bill was filed, does not, of itself, form a bar to the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. And it is further from it, as the defendants issued no execution upon the judgment obtained by them at law, hut remained still, until they issued process upon it, and obtained judgment thereon in the year 1828. When this latter judgment was obtained, the plaintiff states, that he offered to prove the payment of the debt by Matthews, to which theplain-tiffs at law objected, as they had a legal right to do. It therefore appears,, that the defendant was slow in asserting his claim at law, and the plaintiff was backward in his application to this court, perhaps on that account. But the question was submitted to a jury in the Superior Court, whether the debt was paid to the defendant's testator in his life-time. They have responded that it was so paid. I therefore think, that the decree of the Superior court upon that finding should be affirmed ; and that the defendant pay the costs of this court, but the plain*tiff must pay the costs at law, and the costs in equity incurred in the Superior Court.
Per Rt/Ei'iN,J. Á court of equity requires active diligence as well as a just cause, because of the difficulty of ascertaining the truth iji stale 'cases,