Barker v. Elkins

Jun 29, 1815
Reporters:
, ,
The Chancellor.

The plaintiff should have made his defence at-law, by way of payment, or set-off; and ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍he might, perhaps, have called for a discovery in aid of his defence at law. No reason is assigned why he did not call for a discovery, or prepare and defend himself ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍in due season. He has not stated what were the obstacles to a defence at law. A defendant cannot come ” here for a new trial, when no special ground of ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍fraud or surprise is suggested, and when he neglects, or omits due diligence, and without due excuse, to defend himself in his proper place. This is a fundamental doctrine in this ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍court. (Le Guen v. Gouverneur & Kemble, 1 Johns. Cas. 436. M Vickar v. Wolcott, 4 Johns. Rep. 510. Lansing v. Eddy, decided in this court, June, 1814.* Smith & Mead v. Lowry, October, 1814.† The principle has been so often declared, that it is useless to enlarge; and, without resting on minor *467objections, the injunction cannot ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍be retained on the merits di the case.

Motion granted.(a)

Notes

Ante, p. 49.

Ante, p.320.

See De Lime v. Glassell, 4 H. & M. 369. Turpin v. Thomas, 2 H. & M. 139. S. P.