Stout v. Slocum

• Decision Date: 27 November 1893
• Parties: STOUT et al. v. SLOCUM.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

28 A. 7

62 N.J.E. 88

STOUT et al.

v. SLOCUM.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Nov. 27, 1893.

Bill by R. T. Stout and another against Britton Slocum to enjoin execution on a judgment. Bill dismissed.

Chauncey H. Beasley, for complainants.

James Steen, for defendant.

BIRD, V. C. The object of this bill is to overcome a judgment at law, which cannot be relieved against at law, although it is said to have been irregularly obtained, whether such inability results from the neglect of the attorney or the mistake of the judge. The judgment was obtained in the court of common pleas, upon a cause which was certified to that court from the circuit. The judgment being so obtained, the case was again returned to the circuit, and, after it was so in the circuit court, a rule was asked for directing that the judgment should be opened. The chief justice denied the motion, and the order denying such motion also included directions that the cause be remanded to the common pleas, when it is alleged it ought to have been remanded to the circuit, supposing it was in the circuit. This mistake or irregularity of the court was unknown to the defendant in the suit at law, the complainant in this suit, and the execution was issued out of the common pleas, and a levy taken upon the property of the defendant. This fact brought to his attention the exact situation, but, when he learned that the judgment had been entered in the common pleas, 15 days had elapsed, so that he was deprived of the statutory right to give bond to the plaintiff upon taking a writ of error.

Upon the return of the order to show cause in this case why the suit at law should not be restrained till the determination of the rights of the parties, it was insisted that this was a proper case for the interference of a court of equity to restrain proceedings at law. There seems to be nothing in the case to warrant this court in interfering. To say nothing about other defects in the bill, and the proofs verifying the fact of the judgment and orders, there is not a single allegation, nor a shadow of proof, that the complainants had the slightest merits in their defense to the action at law. This is fundamental. Equity never undertakes to relieve a defendant against a judgment at law, unless he can show merits. Mere accident or mistake or irregularity is not under any consideration sufficient. In the case of Insurance Co. v. Hodgson, 7 Cranch, 336, Chief Justice Marshall said: "Without attempting to draw any precise line to which courts of equity will...