Risley v. Fellows

• Citation: 10 Ill. 531,1849 WL 4229,5 Gilman 531
• Parties: HAMILTON D. RISLEYv.ELISHA C. FELLOWS.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1849
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

5 Gilman 531

10 Ill. 531

1849 WL 4229 (Ill.)

HAMILTON D. RISLEY

v.ELISHA C. FELLOWS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1849.

BILL IN CHANCERY, for an injunction, filed in the Will circuit court by the appellant against the appellee, and heard at the October term, 1848, before the Hon. Jesse B. Thomas. The injunction was dissolved by the circuit court on motion, and the bill dismissed. The complainant appealed. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.

T. L. DICKEY, for the appellant.

B. C. COOK, for the appellee:

A court will dismiss a bill on motion, where it is manifest that there is no equity in the bill.

If a party neglects to make his defence at law, a court of chancery will not relieve him. Moore v. Bayley, Breese, 61; Reaugenon v. Turcott, ib. 126; Greenup v. Brown, ib. 193; Elston v. Blanchard, 2 Scam. 422; Armstrong v. Caldwell, ib. 420; Buckmaster v. Grundy, 3 Gilm. 626; Abrams v. Camp, 3 Scam. 290.

A court of equity will not undertake to question the correctness of a judgment at law for irregularity. Crafts v. Hall, 3 Scam. 132.

Nor will chancery review the determination of courts of law in relation to matters properly within their jurisdiction. Sampson v. Hart, 1 Johns. Ch. R. 91, 98; Foster v. Wood, 6 do. 87.

The Opinion of the Court was delivered by TREAT, C. J.

At the May term, 1843, of the Will circuit court, Patrick Doyle recovered a judgment against Steele & Amer, for $113.96. E. C. Fellows, Esq., was the plaintiff's attorney. An execution was issued on the judgment on the 16th of May, 1843, and placed in the hands of H. D. Risley, then sheriff, who returned it in August, 1846, satisfied in full. He settled the costs of the suit, and paid to Fellows $26.00 on account of the judgment. At the May term, 1848, Fellows, as the attorney of the plaintiff, moved the circuit court for a judgment against Risley for the amount collected on the execution and not paid over. Risley filed an answer to the application, in which he admitted the balance to be in his hands, expressed his readiness to pay it to any person authorized to receive it, but alleged as a reason why he had not paid it to Fellows, and why he could not safely pay it, that Doyle departed this life in the year 1844, and that no person had administered on his estate. At the same term, the court made an order that Risley forthwith pay to the plaintiff, or to Fellows, the sum of $109.64, and interest at the rate of twenty per cent. per annum, from the return of the execution. Risley then filed a bill in chancery against Fellows and the unknown legal representatives of Doyle, setting forth the foregoing state of facts, and reiterating the allegations in his answer, and praying that the judgment against him might not be enforced. On this bill, he obtained an injunction. At the succeeding term, the court, on the appearance of Fellows, sustained a motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill. From that decision, Risley prosecuted an appeal to this court.

As the case is here presented, the allegations of the bill...