Lawing v. Schaufflu

• Decision Date: 07 February 1931
• Citation: 34 S.W.2d 1055
• Parties: LAWING v. SCHAUFFLU.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 1055

34 S.W.2d 1055

LAWING v. SCHAUFFLU.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 7, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rutherford County; John E. Richardson, Judge.

Attachment suit by Mrs. Augusta Schaufflu against Mrs. R. N. Lawing. Suit dismissed, and defendant's motion to hear proof and assess damages for wrongful issuance and levy of attachment denied, without prejudice. To review the denial of her motion, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Ewing Clouse, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Wiseman & Todd, of Murfreesboro, for defendant in error.

McKINNEY, J.

The trial court sustained a plea in abatement to the attachment, and dismissed the suit. Thereupon Mrs. Lawing, defendant in the attachment suit, filed a motion, in writing, to hear proof and assess her damages for the wrongful issuance and levy of the attachment. The motion was denied, without prejudice, however, to the right of Mrs. Lawing to bring an original suit upon the attachment bond. Mrs. Lawing has appealed, and assigns the action of the trial court in disallowing her motion for error.

So far as we are aware, this practice has never been sanctioned in this state, and we have no statute authorizing it. The general practice is to institute a separate suit on the attachment bond. Shinn on Attachment, § 182; Wade on Attachment, vol. 1, § 295; Mahoney v. Tyler, 136 N. C. 40, 48 S. E. 549; Carver v. Shelly, 17 Kan. 473; Kerr v. Hyman, 6 Haw. 300.

While the two actions are related, they are separate and distinct, and there is no provision under common-law procedure for joining or combining two suits.

To meet this situation, and in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits, growing out of the same transaction, Courts of Chancery, at an early date, in order to extend its jurisdiction, adapted, among others, the following equitable maxims, to wit:

"When Chancery has jurisdiction for one purpose, it will take jurisdiction for all purposes"; and "Equity delights to do complete justice, and not by halves." Gibson's Suits in Chancery (Chambliss Ed.) 50, 51.

Upon this authority, a court of equity, having taken jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of injunction, or to restrain or abate a nuisance, or to attach property, may decide the whole controversy, its jurisdiction to award damages being incidental to its jurisdiction of the main subject. Richi v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 105 Tenn. 653, 58 S. W. 646; Macheca v. Panesi, 4 Lea (72 Tenn.) 544.

In the last-named case, goods of Panesi were attached by a bill filed in the chancery court. Upon the dismissal of the bill, on motion of Panesi, his damages...