Collins v. Butler

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, J. concurring.

We think that the injunction in this case was improperly granted, and that the hill is destitute of equity.

The defendants, A. J. and E. J. Butler, as partners, brought an action of trespass against Collins and one Mon ell, in the Sixth District Court, for taking and converting certain goods in the possession of, and belonging to, the defendants. The suit was tried on the merits, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs. The case was taken to this Court on appeal, and the judgment below partially affirmed. On the trial, a nonsuit was taken as to Monel!. A motion was made for a new trial below, and overruled, and this action of the Court was also affirmed by the judgment of this Court.

1. The bill is filed to enjoin this judgment on several grounds: The first is for matter entitling the defendant to a new trial. But this matter is the same as that relied on below, and held insufficient. We do not think it can seriously be contended that chancery will give relief, by way of appeal from the law side of the District Court, much less from the judgment of this Court, upon the same facts passed upon in judgment by the law Court and this Court. The Distinct Judge, sitting on the trial below had full power to act in the premises; and this matter, if sufficient at all, was matter for relief at law. There can in such a case be as little necessity as authority for the interposition of a Court of Equity. Litigation would be unnecessarily protracted, if, in every case in which a party moved for a new trial and failed, he could then, upon the same facts, apply to the same Judge for an injunction, and retry his case in equity; and there would be a singular inconsistency in holding that the same [227]Judge, with full jurisdiction and capacity to pass upon given facts and grant the appropriate relief, should apply one measure of relief, or one set of rules, in one character, and another and different measure or set in another character.

2. The second ground is that the plaintiff is entitled to an offset against E. J. Butler, one of the plaintiffs in the judgment^ that Butler is insolvent; that the judgment is, and was when obtained, really owned by E. J. Butler; that he was alone entitled to the goods for trespassing upon which the suit was brought and recovery had in the law Court; that the name of A. J. Butler was only used in that suit to prevent this offset being set up; that this was fraudulently done, and that the action in the form of trespass, was brought for the same purpose. Many facts and circumstances are set out, with much minuteness of detail, in connection with these allegations; but this is the substance of the charge.