Case Name: Jones v. Jones
Court: Superior Court of Chancery of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1809
Citations: 4 Hen. & M. 447
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jones v. Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 944–944

Head Matter:
Jones v. Jones.
Spring Vacation,
1809.
1. Evidence — Accounts. —Rule, as to taking the account of a party of evidence against him.
2. Verdict at Law against a Party — When Not a Bar to Decree in Equity. — A verdict at law against a party is no bar to a decree in his favour if he is brought into Chancery by the adverse party; otherwise, if he were the plaintiff in equity.
The report in this case (which was a bill brought for an account) was in favour of the defendant, against whom a verdict and judgment had been rendered at law, in an action brought by him against the plaintiff, and the questions submitted to the Court were, 1. What should be the effect of the rule where, at law, or in equity, you take an account of one of the parties as evidence against him; and, 2. Whether the judgment at law, as above stated, should bar the defendant from a d.ecree in his favour for the balance so reported.
Evidence — Production of Books of Adversary. — In Rowan v. Chenoweth, 49 W. Va. 287, 38 S. E. Rep. 546, it is said: “The rule is that, when a party calls for the production of and uses a writing or account of his adversary, the whole writing, the whole account, debits and credits, is thus made evidence in the case. It cannot be garbled; one side or showing of it merely cannot be used for hurt of one party to the benefit of another. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 563: Whart. JSv. §§ 620. 1103; Jones n. Jones, 4 Hen. c6 AC 447; Preeland v. Cocke, 3Munf. 352.”
See monographic note on “Evidence” appended to Lee v. Tapscott, 2 Wash. 276.

Opinion:
By the Chancellor.
As to the first question, the general rule of law is this, that where you take an account of one of the parties as evidence against him, you must admit it to be evidence for him : but this, is only so far as the account itself would be evidence if it were proved by other means. For example, the account should not be evidence, so far as any error should be apparent on its face.
As to the second question: if the defendant had brought this suit, the judgment at law against him would be a clear bar; but as the suit is brought against him by his. adversary, at law, the judgment is no bar.
Decree for the defendant.