7 Md. 393 | Md. | 1855
delivered the opinion of this court.
We are not to determine, on this appeal, whether the points of law submitted to the court, in the trial at law, were properly decided or not. Indeed, the counsel for the appellant contends that these rulings, whether correct or not, must he taken as the law of this case, and the present bill is framed on the assumption that they are correct, and that he hpd no remedy, except by a proceeding in equity, after the jury, under directions from the court, had found that the beef was sold to the appellant, and not left with him as bailee. But, as this view of the case concedes that he has .a cause of action at law upon the warranty as to the quality and condition of the beef, for the purpose of giving this court jurisdiction of
The point, then, on which the question of jurisdiction turns is, whether the appellant is without adequate remedy at law, in the sense in which that doctrine of equity is to be understood. We have found no cases touching the question before us, except those from Kentucky, referred to on the part of the appellant; in some of which relief was granted, upon the principles of set-off, where one party proved insolvent, or was absent, by reason of which the remedy at law might be obstructed. It is not a general doctrine of that State, though enforced in special cases. Collins vs. Farquar, 4 Littell, 154. Upon the authority of these decisions it is quite probable that the present bill might be supported there, but we are not aware that the chancery jurisdiction here has ever been extended to such cases as the present.
The failure of remedy is not the want of jurisdiction at law over the subject matter, but because the party to be sued cannot be served by process in a proceeding in personam, and not in rem. It is true that the appellee belongs to another jurisdiction, hut so did the appellant in respect to the appellee and his cause of action, yet he was obliged under the law to contend with the same difficulty which the appellant seems unwilling to meet—the prosecution of his debtor in the courts of his own State. It is a very grave suggestion that when a citizen of another State comes here to enforce a right, he shall be restricted to terms not common to our own citizens. Where the question relates to the law of the forum it depends on a different principle. But here the appellee has a judgment, rendered by a State court, which he seeks to collect by process of the same court, and this is denied to him, merely because being a non-resident of this State, he
Decree affirmed.