About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Bennet R. Truly, Complainant and Appellant, v. Moses Wanzer, Jarez Harrison, and John Nicholson U.S. 141 (1847)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0303 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM, 1847. 141 Truly v. Wanzer et al. of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and that this cause be and the same is-hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions to award a venire facias de nrvo. BENNET R. TRULY, COMPILAINANT AND APPELLANT, V, MOSES WAX- ZER, JABEZ HARRISON, AND 'OHN R. NICHOLSON. The preceding case of Rowan and Harris v. Runnels reviewed and confirmed. Thb general principle with regard to injunctions after a judgment at law is this,- that'any fact which proves it to be against couscience to execute such judgment, and of whiclr-the party could not have availed himself in a court of law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or ac- cident, unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will au- thorize a court of equity to interfere 1y injuiction to restrain the adverse party from availing himself of such judgment. Hence, where a party-had remained for ten years in the undisturbed enjoyment of the property which he purchased, it was no ground for an injunction to stay pro- ceedings for the recovery of the purchase mopey, to say that the original pur- chase was void by the laws of the State, but that he bad neglected to urge that- defence at law, or to say that he had heard that some persons unknown might possibly-at some future time assert a title to the property. Such an injunction, if.granted, must be dissolved. THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Missi~sippi. The facts in the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the -court. The case was argued by M7Ir. Crittenden, for the appellant, and X1Ir. Coxe, for the appellees. Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. It is not easy to apprehend or appreciate the grounds upon which the complainant in this case has invoked the aid of a court of chan- cery. He purchased some negroes from one Herbert,-in 1836, to whom he gave two notes in payment. On one of these, suit was brought and a judgment obtained, which has bee i paid and satisfied. The other remains unpaid, but the complainattt has been summoned as garnishee of Herbert in a suit by Wanier and Harrison, in which a judgment has also been obtained, and an execution issued; and he now asks the interposition of a court of equity, not only to protect him from the judgment and execution, but also to restore to him that portion of the consideration which has been recovered by due course of law. The reasons alleged for this request are, firbt, because the negroes purchased by him were brought into the State of Missis- sippi for sale contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the State; and therefore the contract was illegal and Void. And,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most