Mullins v. Christopher

• Decision Date: 31 December 1867
• Citation: 36 Ga. 584
• Parties: PLEASANT J. MULLINS, plaintiff in error. v. WM. H. CHRISTOPHER, prochien ami of PAULINE CHRISTOPHER, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

36 Ga. 584

PLEASANT J. MULLINS, plaintiff in error. v. WM. H. CHRISTOPHER, prochien ami of PAULINE CHRISTOPHER, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Milledgeville, Dec. Term, 1867.)

Bill to enjoin Judgment, &c. Decided by Judge Worrill. Taylor County. Chambers, May, 1867.

Mullins averred that Wm. H. Christopher, as prochien ami of his daughter, Pauline, brought an action against him for breach of a promise to marry Pauline; that the case was tried on appeal at April term, 1865, of said Court, and the verdict was against Mullins for.$5,000 and costs; that fi. fa. had been issued for that sum and was in the hands of the sheriff for collection.

It was averred also, that this verdict was found upon the '"testimony of Wm. H. Christopher, plaintiff, solely, who testified that in 1862, when the action was brought, defendant was worth $75,000, counting the value of his slaves, which were from fifty to seventy-five in number. Whereas, in fact, defendant in that year paid taxes on 3086 acres of land, valued at $15,000, twenty-eight slaves, valued $11,200, making a total of but $31,200; that this, too, was given in on the basis of Confederate currency, which was the only currency of this State then, and when said verdict was rendered; that at the date of the verdict one dollar in specie was worth fifty dollars of such currency.

Because, as he averred, the jury expected said judgment would be paid in such currency, because defendant had lostheavily by the results of the war, and because Pauline\'s injury was only imaginary, (she having since married a man more suitable for her) Mullins thought that said judgment should be razeed to its specie value, and prayed injunction against its enforcement.

At Chambers the following facts appeared by ex parte affidavits.

Three of the jury affirmed that they intended their verdict should be paid in Confederate currency, and believed the balance of the jury so intended. One of the complainant's solicitors affirmed that he had heard six of the jury say that they so intended.

Christopher affirmed that at the time of the breach of promise, Mullins was sixty years old, and Pauline but sixteen, that after her parents had reluctantly consented to the nuptials, and had prepared her wedding apparel, &c, Mullins, about the appointed time, and with no notice to them or Pauline, and without excuse, married another.

Christopher's solicitor affirmed that he was plaintiff's attorney in said action, (related the testimony in said cause substantially as aforesaid) that the case was defended by Col. S. T. Bailey and Edwards & Holsey, able lawyers, who urged the jury to find nominal damages only, because the same would have to be paid on a specie basis.

Two of the jurors who swore as to their intention, &c, affirmed *that, as they recollected, nothing was said by the jury as to the kind of currency in which their verdict was to be paid. Defendant read also an affidavit made by Mullins, showing that he, in January, 1866, was worth $15,000 at least.

The Chancellor refused the injunction, and this is assigned as error.

Miller, Edwards & Holsey, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. Wallace, B. Hill, for defendant in error.

WALKER, J.

1. This bill is filed with a double aspect; either for a new trial, or to reform the verdict. That a court of equity has the power to grant a new trial in a case tried at law upon a proper case made, has been settled since the celebrated contest between Lord Ellesmere and Lord Coke, in the early part of the seventeenth century. It is a power which should, however, be exercised with extreme caution, and on a proper case made. Pierce v. Christian, 3 Ga. Rep., 229. In delivering the opinion in this case, Judge Lumpkin says: "The general rule is, that courts of chancery will not interfere after verdict and judgment at law, except in cases of fraud, or surprise, or in extraordinary cases where manifest injustice would be done, nor where the party might have defended himself fully at law, and neglected to do it. Great abuse would be made of a contrary doctrine, by drawing within the jurisdiction of equity, as by a side wind, almost all causes decided at law. The high powers entrusted to chancery to promote...