Grand Chute v. Winegar In Equity

• Citation: 82 U.S. 373,21 L.Ed. 174,15 Wall. 373
• Parties: GRAND CHUTE v. WINEGAR. IN EQUITY
• Decision Date: 01 December 1872
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

82 U.S. 373

21 L.Ed. 174

15 Wall. 373

GRAND CHUTE v. WINEGAR.

IN EQUITY.

December Term, 1872

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The town of Grand Chute, in Wisconsin, filed its bill or the equity side of the court below against one Winegar three other persons, Goodwin, Hewett, and Conkey, being also made defendants. It set forth that Winegar had brought suit on the law side of the same court against the town to recover from it the amount of certain bonds—nine in number, and for the sum of $8500 in all purporting to have been issued by the said town; that the bonds were issued without authority, in violation of law, and in fraud of the town, by the other defendants, Goodwin, Hewett, and Conkey; that for reasons set forth in the bill the bonds had no legal force or validity; that the transfer of them to Winegar was colorable merely; that he paid no valuable consideration on the pretended purchase; that though he had given his notes for them, he was a bankrupt and altogether 'irresponsible in a financial point of view;' that he knew all the facts in relation to the issue, and that he never had any right or title to the said pretended bonds, or to any of them. It was further alleged that Winegar was a citizen of the State of New York, and that the other defendants were citizens of Wisconsin. The bill prayed that an injunction might be issued restraining Winegar and his confederates from the further prosecution of suit on the bonds, and that the bonds themselves might be adjudged to be fraudulent and void, and be decreed to be cancelled. To this bill the defendants demurred. The demurrer was sustained in the court below, and the complainant now appealed to this court.

Mr. G. W. Lakin, for the appellant; Mr. H. L. Palmer, contra.

Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The inquiry at once suggests itself upon reading the bill in this case, why does the plaintiff file it? Can any relief be had in this suit which could not be obtained in the suit sought to be enjoined? It is an elementary principle of equity law that, when full and adequate relief can be obtained in a suit at law, a suit in equity cannot be maintained. In Hipp v. Babin¹ the court say: 'The bill in this case is in substance and legal effect an ejectment bill. The title appears by the bill to be merely legal, the evidence to support it appears from documents accessible to either party, and no particular circumstances are stated showing the necessity of the court's interfering, either for preventing suits or other vexation, or for preventing an injustice irremediable at law. In Welby v. Duke of Rutland,² it is stated that the general practice of courts of equity in not entertaining suits for establishing legal titles, is founded upon clear reasons, and the departing from that practice where there is no necessity for so doing, would be subversive of the legal and constitutional distinctions between the different jurisdictions of law and equity. . . .. Agreeably hereto, the established and universal practice of courts of equity is to dismiss the plaintiff's bill if it appears to be grounded on a title merely legal, and not cognizable by them, notwithstanding the defendant has answered the bill and insisted on matter of title.' After citing numerous other authorities, the matter is thus summed up: 'And the result of the argument is, that whenever a...