History
  • No items yet
midpage
Peterson v. Blanton
76 Ala. 264
Ala.
1884
Check Treatment
STONE, C. J.-

— When there is a judgment at law on a legal demand, obtained according to the rules which govern law courts, there can be no relief in the Chancery Court for mere reversible errors, nor for any other wrong or injury done or suffered, unless the party complaining shows that he had a valid subsisting demand .which he can establish, or a valid, meritorious defense which he can prove; and that he was prevented from establishing his right, or maintaining his defense, as the case may be, by surprise, accident, mistake, or the fraud of the opposite party, without any fault or negligence on his part. This rule has been long established, and is without exception. French v. Garner, 7 Por. 549; Beadle v. Graham, 66 Ala. 102; Collier v. Falk, Ib. 223; Broda v. Greenwald, Ib. 538 ; 1 Brick. Dig. 666, § 376.

*267The case made by the present bill falls far below the required standard.

The decree of the Chancery Court is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Peterson v. Blanton
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Dec 15, 1884
Citation: 76 Ala. 264
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.