Lee v. Baird
4 Va. 946
Virginia Chancery Court
1809
Check Treatment
By the Chancellor.

Goodrich and Anderson have not answered, and Jаmes H. Baird relies principally upon these twо points: 1. That the dissolution of the partnership ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‍of Goodrich, Lee and Co. in 1801, was not known; and, 2. That the plaintiff might have defended himself at law. As to the *947first point, there would be much weight in the objection, if thе fact ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‍were so, and the contract had been in the name of Goodrich, Lee & Co. but the fact was not so, and the contract was not ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‍in their names, but in the name of John B. Goodrich & Co. in which thе plaintiff had no concern : and ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‍this too, after the dissolution in May, 1801.

As to the second point; it is not denied but that the plaintiff was misled by Anderson, and therefore did not defend himself at law: and, I confess, it is a vеry doubtful point, whether, on account of Andersоn’s misconduct, a legal advantage obtainеd by Baird at law, should be taken away: and, I am inclined to think that it should not, if the plaintiff had, in any manner, contributed to mislead Baird, or to place his clаim ‍​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‍in a worse situation ; but he has not. In this case he is fаultless. He comes into Court with clean hands; and if Baird and Anderson have not combined to opрress him, he has done nothing to injure either of them, as Baird has his judgment against Goodrich and Anderson, who аre his proper debtors, and now occupies the same ground he did before he sued the plaintiff. This is not like the case of Chisholm against Anthony, (a) In thаt case Chisholm availed himself of all the delаys of the law, and when he could no longer thwart Anthony, he then came here for relief, which was dеnied, as he applied with unclean hands; and as the real debtor might in that time have becomе insolvent. Nor is this like the case of Nicholson and Heth against Hancocke and Golliat; as in thаt case the plaintiffs were the real debtors, and might have controlled the advice which kеpt them from making their *defence at law, and thеrefore they should have done it. But, in this case, the plaintiff never was the debtor of Baird, and most clearly was deceived by Anderson, on whom the plaintiff relied to pay the debt, and thereforе he expected to hear no more оf it, and so went undefended. Nay, it was a circumstance which, as he relied upon it, he could not сontrol, until it was too late: and, therefore, his сase forms an exception to the general rule, and the injunction must be made perpetual as to Bee, at the costs of Goodrich and Anderson, against whom Baird may still proceed at law, unless they ■can shew cause against it at the term after they shall be served with a copy of the decree.

Notes

‘1 Hen. & Munf. p. 13.