7 Ga. 110 | Ga. | 1849
Lead Opinion
Having thus put myself right on this matter, we will proceed to examine, with all possible brevity, the merits of this case; and passing by all the other points presented in the record, I shall confine myself entirely to the consideration of the main question, namely : whether or not the demurrer to the bill of review sliouldhave been sustained. I hold that it ought, and for the following reasons:
The case in Sioanston is short, and as it bears a striking resemblance to the one at bar, I will quote the whole of it. It was between father and son. The son had formerly exhibited a bill against his father, to have an account of personal estate, and also1 of the prebend of North Grantham, where his father was a trustee for him. At the hearing the son proved his case. The Master of the Rolls, who heard it, meditated an agreement, which produced a consent that the father should convey to the son, and the son should pay the father ¿650 per annum, and release to hi'» father all account of the arrears, and of the personal estate. Both subscribed their consent to the minutes, and thereupon a reconciliation was made, and a blessing asked and given in open Court. And after all this the father brought a bill of review to reverse the decision. The Chancellor immediately dismissed the bill, and would hear no more of it, upon the ground that there can be no error or injustice of which the Courts will take cognizance in a decree by consent — volentinonfit injuria.
Let us now apply the principle thus illustrated to the case under discussion.
In 1830, Felix Lewis borrowed of George Hargraves $3000, at the usurious rate of about 14^- per cent, interest per annum. The debt was renewed from time to time upon the same terms, until it amounted to $10,500, Hargraves sued Wm. L. Wynn, one of the parties to the last note given, and obtained judgment against him for the whole amount of the debt. Lewis, the borrower, filed his bill against Hargraves and Wynn, charging collusion between them, and expressing the fear that if Wynn paid this judgment, he would have recourse over against him for reimbursement. He tendered to Hargraves the original sum loaned, with lawful interest thereon, and upon his refusal to receive it, he deposited the money in the Clerk’s office, and prayed a perpetual injunction against 'the judgment as to the residue. Hargraves answered the bill and admitted the loan, usury, renewals, &e, Wynn failed or refused to answer.
Felix Lewis, \ vs. > Bill for discovery. George Hargraves and Wm. L. Wynn. )
In the above case the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars having been tendered in satisfaction of the judgment in favor of Hargraves and Wynn, and the same sum having been deposited in the hands of the Clerk : It is Ordered, that the same bo paid to the attorneys of George Hargraves, in full payment of said judgment, unless the Court should decide that the complainant is bound to pay an additional sum as interest upon interest.
Subsequently at Chambers, and before the appearance term of the bill, the Judge passed the following order:
Felix Lewis, v vs. > In Equity. George Hargraves and Wm. L. Wynn. )
The attorneys in the above case are.hereby notified, that the settlement heretofore made, will be final and conclusive, as I cannot allow the claim of compound interest, on the ground that Equity only looks to the original loan, and requires interest thereon from its date. All the subsequent agreements by way of renewals, were not legal contracts, and are not cognizable in Equity, Equity only looking back to the original transaction.
At the term of the Court following this order, it being the first term after the filing the bill, the following order was taken and entered on the minutes, and appears there of record:
Felix Lewis, \ vs. > Bill for injunction. George Hargraves and Wm. L. Wynn. )
The Court having sustained the bill, and the party defendant having accepted the money tendered, Ordered, that the said bill be sustained, and the injunction made perpetual.
Conceding, now, that all the foregoing orders were a nullity, and that the final decree, making the injunction perpetual, on account of its being made at the appearance term, and by the Judge alone, without the intervention of a Jury, I ask, do not the facts which they disclose show, conclusively, a settlement of the case by
Such being the case, he cannot disturb the settlement, and if errors were committed, they were cured by the voluntary adjustment of the controversy; and the order making the injunction perpetual was wholly nugatory — it was an act of supererogation. The judgment against Wynn being satisfied, the execution to enforce it was at an end, and it would be idle to sanction a bill of review to rectify this decree. For,
3dly. It is a well settled doctrine, that a bill of' review will not lie where the original bill contains no equity. Todd vs. Lackey,
Even Courts of Law, notwithstanding a misdirection, will not grant a new trial against justice and honesty; and especially if it ought to produce the same result. And it is a mistake, wo apprehend, to suppose thatCourts, either of Law or of Equity, have no discretion when thus appealed to. An application for anew trial at Law, or a bill of review in Equity, is always addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the Court; and it will exercise that discretion in such a manner as will best answer the ends of justice. And it will not do to hold that no matter in which forum he is presiding, he is to examine merely whether or not error has been committed. And I hold it to be an axiom, that a cause will not be°directed to be re-tried on amere technical objection.
In Coffee vs. Rowlands, (2 Meeson and Welsby, 149,) Par let?, Baron, delivering the judgment of the Court, says, “ it is perfectly settled, that where the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, be it express or implied, is expressly or by implication forbidden by the Common or Statute Law, no Court will lend its assistance to give it effect.”
The leading case on this subject is that of the Duchess of Mazarine, (2 Salk. R. 646,) where the verdict was admitted to be against law, yet the Court there held that, as the justice and conscience of the case were clearly with the verdict, it would not interpose. So in Alsop vs. Magill, (4 Day, 42,) the Supreme Court of Connecticut say, “whether the charge of the Court was perfectly correct in point of law, it is unnecessary to determine. Justice is done, and a new trial ought not to be granted.” See also 2 Term Rep. 4. 1 Bos. & Pul. 338, in notis. 6 Taunt. 336. 5 Mass. R. 1. 7 Greenlf, 442. 2 Pick. 310. Indeed Courts hold, uniformly, but one language upon this subject. Such have been the constant adjudications of this tribunal; that is, that we would look through the record to satisfy ourselves what direction to give to the cause; and that we would never remand it for a
' It does not require much penetration to see what the ends of justice require in the present case. It is admitted by the complainant, Hargraves, in his sworn answer to the bill filed by Lewis, that he has long since received every dollar of his original loan, with lawful interest thereon. And what is it he seeks at our hands 1 He complains that, by an irregular and illegal decree of the Circuit Court,he has been restrained from collecting some $4,000 of usury, besides a large amount of accruing interest; and he prays the interposition of this Court to unchain his judgment, that he may enforce the payment of this unconscientious demand ! To my mind this is a most extraordinary application ! And it would be still more strange, were it to receive the countenance of a Court of Chancery. I care not what errors are apparent on the record; for myself I do not feel at liberty to listen to such a petition, especially when every order and decision of the Judge who presided in the original cause, as to the terms upon which this usurious transaction should be settled, meets my most unqualified approbation.
Can a case be' found where a party has obtained the aid of a Court of Chancery to compel the payment of usury 1 On the contrary, is not the principle to be found scattered broad-cast through all the elementary works and reported cases, that Equity will refuse any assistance to the usurious lender seeking to coerce compliance from the debtor ? I had thought that if there was anything certain in jurisprudence, it was that Equity would not assist a wrong-doer, who attempts to make the Court the means of carrying into effect a transaction manifestly wrong and illegal; one condemned by the wisest statesmen and most profound jurists in every enlightened nation, ancient and modern, and in the bold language of the eloquent counsel, by the voice of Deity himself.
The loan of money, says Chancellor Kent, creates the interesting relation of debtor and creditor, which has, in all ages of the world, produced fearful consequences; and to preserve the laws of justice in that relation has, hitherto, required the utmost sagacity on the part of Government, and the greatest wisdom and
The Court of Appeals in Kentucky held, that if a mortgagee file a bill to foreclose a mortgage to secure a usurious loan, the bill will be dismissed whenever the fact is made to appear. Richardson vs. Brown, 3 Bibb’s Rep. 207.
And why should we relax the rules which discountenance this practice, when our people are just beginning to reap the rich benefits resulting from its supjDression ? We should rather uphold with a steady hand, in all its length and breadth, the policy of our laws against usury. It is imparting a new spring to the agriculture, manufactures and internal improvements of our State. It is contributing, among other things, to rescue our citizens from the necessity of emigrating, by finding profitable employment at home. It is covering our waste places with plenty and prosperity. It is furnishing our mechanics with the means of maintaining their families, and educating their children; and soon, if persevered in, it will intersect every section of the State with a railroad, and cause the machinery of the cotton, as well as every other species of factory, to clatter upon every water-fall and in every neighborhood in Georgia.
We are constrained, therefore, by the highest public considerations, to t-urn a deaf ear to this complainant, however venerable for age, intelligence and private worth.
Nor does the fact that his contract has been reduced to judgment, chango the principle. Having this advantage at law, he had a right to use it. But finding his hands tied, when he invokes our aid tq turn his judgment loose, confessedly for usury, and
The 16th section of the Judiciary Act of 1792, vests the Superior Court with Equity powers in certain cases, until the case is set down for trial, which shall then be submitted, with the evidence, to a special Jury, who shall give their verdict on the same. Wath. Digest, 480. The Act of 1792 was repealed by the Act of 1797, which, however, contained the same provision, and in the very same words. Watk. Digest, 692. The Judiciary Act of 1799, now in force, repealed the Act of 1797, from the 1st to the 67th clause, inclusive. The 53d section of the Act of 1799 declares, that the Superior Courts shall exercise the powers of a Court of Equity in all cases where a Common Law remedy is not adequate, &c; and the proceedings, in all such cases, shall
And where, I respectfully repeat, is the pretext for maintaining that the Law powers of the Court are restricted or curtailed, or those of the Jury enlarged in Equity, any more than in appeal or Common Law cases? There is no foundation for this hypothesis, unless it be based upon the Constitution of 1777, which made the Jury the judges of the Lato, as well as of the fact, in all cases, civil and criminal.
In Georgia, before the amendment of the Constitution, calling this Court into being, we had no writs of error to which to analogise bills of review; and now writs of error must be brought within thirty days after the adjournment of the Court, at which the cause was tried. Is not this a case requiring Legislative interference ?
The view we have taken of this case being in accordance with the ruling of the Circuit Court, we need only-add that the judgment is affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of my brother Lumpkin, to which I refer. A great many questions were discussed at this bar, on the hearing of this cause, to which I shall not advert. I shall briefly discuss that upon which it seems to be conceded the judgment must turn. "Whether the plaintiff in the bill ought to fail, on the ground that he comes into Equity to enforce the collection of usurious interest, may be a very serious question. Believing that the judgment below ought to be affirmed upon grounds wholly independent of it, I feel myself free to omit its discussion- — leaving that work to my brother Lumpkin, if he sees proper to encounter it.
This bill goes upon the first ground. It charges error in law,in the decree originally made by Judge Sturgis, at the first term' of the cause of Felix Lewis vs. George Hargraves and William-Wynn. That order is in these words : “ The Court having sustained the bill, and the .party defendant having accepted the money tendered, Ordered, that the said bill be sustained, and the-injunction made perpetual.”
If this be an order of the Court, wholly independent of any settlement of the cause by the parties out of Court, my own opinion is, that it is subject to review. If, however, it is to be taheñas the evidence of a voluntary settlement between the parties, or to change the phraseology, if it is an order or judgment of the Court, founded on the act of the parties, it is not subject to review. If the latter, it is admitted by counsel for the complainant, not to be subject to review ; for, however such a settlement might be opened, in a proper case made in Chancery, it cannot be
That was a case which came before this Court on a bill of exceptions and writ of error, taken to a decision of the Circuit Court, on the character and effect of the order in question. The parties then before this Court, were the parties to the bill now sought to be reviewed. Hargraves and Wynn, the original complainants to the present bill of review, and Felix Lewis, the defendant, were all before this Court in that case, and were heard. The decision then made on that order, was on the same subject matter, and between the same parties now before us. That order must be, therefore, res adjudicata, between the parties. It is desirable, however, to be more particular as to the manner in which the question came up in the case in 3 Kelly, in order to understand distinctly what was decided in that case, and in order to determine whether the decision covers the question now before us. The original bill was filed by Felix Lewis against Hargraves and Wynn, to enjoin the collection of usurious interest charged to be embraced in a judgment which Hargraves had obtained against Wynn. That bill charged that the note upon which that judgment was founded, and upon which Wynn was indorser, was taken by Hargraves in ligu of a note made by the complainant Lewis; that his (Lewis’ note, and those of which it was a renewal,) was given to Hargraves for the loan of a sum of money at usurious interest; that he (Lewis) was the principal debtor to Hargraves; that Wynn had fraudulently combined with Hargraves, and confessed the judgment for principal, lawful and usurious interest, in order to force him to pay it; that if Wynn, who was only a surety on the debt, should pay the usurious interest, he (Lewis) would be compelled to refund it to him, and therefore, he prays an injunction against the judgment, so far as the usurious interest is concerned. Lewis’ bill makes a tender of the principal and lawful interest. Such was the original bill in
All that remains for me to do, is to show that this Court has decided that the order in question was founded on a voluntary set
Passing, then, to the consideration of the third order passed by Judge Sturgis, and which is the order now being considered, this Court say, “having disposed of the orders in Chambers, by declaring them null, we proceed to inquire into the character and effect of the order passed in the cause at the appearance term. This was claimed to be a decree, by the counsel for the plaintiff’ in error. We do not so consider it. If we did view it in the light of a decree, we would, for the reasons, in part, upon which we pronounce the other orders null, declare this null also. It is very
Thus it is manifest that in the case heretofore before this Court, we were called upon to pass upon the validity of these orders, and to determine their character and effect. The two first orders were adjudged null and void; that was their character, and of course they could have no effect. In determining upon the third, (and still be it remembered, the one now before us,) we characterize it as not being a decree; that is, not purporting to be a decree of the Court, passed upon its own authority; meaning, obviously, to use the word decree as contradistinguished from the action of the Court founded upon a settlement between the parties. The Court say, that if they did view it in the light of a decree, they would pronounce it void also. How, then, do they view the matter? They rule that there was a voluntary settlement, and that the order is the evidence of it; and so characterizing it; and because there was a voluntary settlement, they give effect to it, and affirm the judgment below; so that it is, to my mind, perfectly manifest that this Court has adjudged this order to be founded on asettlement. It is difficult for me to imagine any other construction of the case in 3 Kelly. No one, it seems to me, can read that case, without seeing that, upon their own principles, this Court could not have given any effect to that order, without first determining that there was a settlement, and that it was the evidence of a .settlement.
Called upon now to say whether that order is subject to review, I say it is not, because it is only an order passed by the
That part of the order which perpetually enjoins the execution, is merely surplusage. If there was a settlement of the cause, it disposed of all that was in controversy in it.
Let the judgment below be affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
This is a bill of review to reverse a former decree of the Superior] Court, exercising jurisdiction in Chancery, under the Statutes of this State, made in a cause in which Felix Lewis was complainant, and George Hargraves and William L. Wynn, defendants. The object of the bill now sought to be reviewed, was tobe relieved against a judgment confessed by Wynn to Hargraves, for about the sum of ten thousand dollars, the original consideration of which is alleged to have been founded on a usurious contract. The main ground of equity asserted by Lewis in his bill, and upon which his title to relief is predicated is, that he was the principal borrower of the money from Hargraves, and that Wynn was his security only therefor, and that if Wynn is compelled to pay the entire amount of the judgment to Hargraves, as such security, he, Lewis, will be compelled to reimburse Wynn, as his security, for the whole amount of the judgment confessed by Wynn, as the security of Lewis, to Hargraves; therefore Lewis paid into the Clerk’s office, the principal and lawful interest admitted by him to be due Hargraves, amounting to the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars, and jn-ayed a perpetual injunction. against Hargraves, to restrain him from collecting the balance of his judgment so confessed by Wynn, as the security of Lewis, as before stated. The entire equity of Lewis, it will be perceived, is based on the allegation, that if Wynn, as his^ecarity, shall be compelled to pay the full amount of the judgment to Plargraves, that he, Lewis, will be compelled to refund to Wynn
George Hargraves and ¥u. L. Wynn.
“ The Court having sustained the bill, and the party defendant having accepted the money tendered, Ordered, that the said bill be sustained and the injunction made perpetual.”
I have thus stated the object of the bill, and the judgment or decree of the Court made thereon, as the same appears of record, which is now sought to be reviewed, and set aside for error apparent on the face of the record. In the bill of review there are several grounds of error alleged as being apparent on the face of the record and decree; but I shall only notice two of them — first, that there is no equity apparent on'the face of the original bill, which would entitle Lewis, the complainant, to any relief in a Court of Equity. Second, that it appears upon the face of the record, that the judgment or decree of the Court, perpetually enjoining the collection of Hargraves’ judgment, was made without the intervention of a Jury.
I will first consider Lewis’ right or title to relief, as exhibited on the face of the record; for if the record does not disclose any right or title in him, to have had the judgment or decree of the Court in his favor, perpetually enjoining Hargraves’ judgment, then there is error in law apparent on the face of the record. If I understand the rule established by a majority of this Court in Whitehead vs. Peck, Lewis, the complainant in the bill against Hargraves, had no right or title to maintain his bill in a Court of Equity, to have Hargraves’ judgment perpetually enjoined against Wynn, who was the security of Lewis; for, as I understand the rule established by the Court in that case, if Wynn, as the security of Lewis, had paid the usurious interest to Hargraves, he could not have recovered it from Lewis, for want of privity in law between them.
See the judgment of the Court in Whitehead vs. Peck, 1 Kelly’s Rep. 140.
If the rule established by the majority of the Court in Whitehead vs. Peck, is to stand, and be considered as binding authority
Since the adoption of the Constitution of 1798, there is no legislative enactment which declares, in express terms, that Equity [causes shall be submitted to, and tried by a Jury; but it is expressly declared by the 16th section of the Judiciary Act of 1792, and the 8th section of the Judiciary Act of 1797, that after an Equity cause is set down for hearing, “the Superior Court shall then submit the merits of the suit, with the evidence thereon, and all matters respecting the same, to a special Jury, who shall give their verdict on the same.” Wath. Dig. 480, 632. By the 5th section of the 4th article of the Constitution of 1798, it is declared, “ trial by Jury, as heretofore used in this State, shall remain inviolate.” Prince, 912. It is true that the Judiciary Acts of 1792 and 1797 were both repealed by the Judiciary Act of 1799; but the former Acts are cited, for the purpose of showing in what manner trial by Jury was used in this State, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1798. By reference to the Acts of 1792 and 1797, it will readily be perceived that Equity causes were required to be submitted to, and tried by a special Jury. Before, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1798, trial by Jury in Equity causes was used in this State, and the Constitution expressly declares, that “trial by Jury, as heretofore used in this State, shall remain inviolate.” The right of the citizen then, to have his cause, pending on the Equity side of the Superior Court, submitted to a special Jury before a final decree is made against him, is expressly secured by the Constitution, of which right, neither the Legislature nor the Courts have the lawful authority to deprive him, without a reckless violation of the 5th section of the 4th article of that Constitution.
It appears upon the face of the record and decree sought to be reviewed and reversed, that a final decree of the Superior Court has been made, perpetually enjoining Hargraves, the complainant In the bill of review, from collecting his judgment from Wynn, without the intervention of a Jury. I repeat, it is apparent on
'When this cause was before this Court in 1847, the judgment of the Court was, that there had been a final disposition of it, as appeared from the records of the Superior Court; and when it was before this Court again during the present year atTalbotton, this Court recognized the judgment of the Superior Court, making the injunction against Hargraves perpetual, as a final decree in the cause which is now sought to be reviewed. See Hargraves vs. Lewis, 6 Ga. Rep. 207. The bill originally filed by Lewis against Plargraves .and Wynn, was finally disposed of by the decree of the Superior Court, which perpetually enjoined Plargraves from collecting the thirty-five hundred dollars, the balance due on his judgment, as appears from the records of the Sujserior Court. The complainant, (Hargraves,) whose rights are prejudiced by that decree, now brings his bill of review to reverse it, for error in law, apparent on its face. There stands the decree on the records of the Superior Court, duly enrolled according to our practice, which perpetually restrains Hargraves from the exercise and enjoyment of his legal rights, acquired by his judgment against Wynn. That judgment cannot be set aside on motion or impeached collaterally. I am satisfied, for the reasons already given, that there is error in law, apparent on the face of that record and decree, and that the complainant has pursued the proper, and, in my judgment, the only legitimate remedy to reverse it, by exhibiting his bill of review. It has been insisted that the decree now sought to be reviewed, was founded on a voluntary settlement between Lewis and Hargraves, and the reasons given by the Judge who delivered the judgment of this Court in Hargraves vs. Lewis, (3 Kelly, 169,) is relied on. Perhaps it would be a sufficient answer to this argument to say, that the question of settlement was not made by the record in that case. As I have before stated, the question, and the only question.made for the judgment of this Court in that case was, whether the case between Lewis and Hargraves and Wynn, had been finally disposed of by the judgment or decree of the Superior .Court, as exhibited in
It is true, the Judge who wrote out the judgment of this Court in Hargraves vs. Lewis, in attempting to account for the very extraordinary decree of the Court as it appeared on the record, does say, it was competent for the parties to settle the case out of Court, and that such an agreement seems to be shadowed forth in the order. That it was entirely competent for the parties to have settled the case out of Court, I do not doubt, but my objection is, that there is no evidence of any such settlement in the record of that case. The question of settlement was not presented by the record for the judgment of the Court. The settlement of a case is the act of the parties — a judgment or decree of the Court is the sentence of the law, and is binding upon parties and privies until reversed. What money was it that Hargraves accepted, from which a settlement is to be inferred, of the balance oí the judgment which was perpetually enjoined? Most clearly the money tendered by Lewis, and about which there was no dispute. The decree of the Court is in the following words — after reciting the parties : “ The Court having sustained the bill, and the party defendant having accepted the money tendered, Ordered, that said bill be sustained, and the injunction made perpetual.”
The argument amounts to this: that inasmuch as Hargraves accepted the principal and lawful interest, admitted by Lewis to be justly due when tendered, and about which there was no dispute, therefore such acceptance shall operate as a settlement of the balance due on the judgment, and Hargraves shall be perpetually enjoined from collecting such balance. In Byrd vs. Odam, (9 Ala. Rep. 755,) it was held, that where a complainant brings money into Court, insisting it is all that is due to the defendant, and the