26 Gratt. 67 | Va. | 1875
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill in chancery to injoin a judgment at law. In general, any facts which prove it to be against
In Tapp's adm’or v. Rankin, 9 Leigh 478, the rule is negatively declared, setting forth under what circumstances the party injured will not he entitled to relief in equity by Parker, J., who delivered the opinion in which a majority of the court concurred. The rule, he says, is well settled, “ that after a trial at law, if there appear to he no fraud or surprise on the part of the plaintiff, equity cannot relieve the defendant from the consequences of mere negligence, notwithstanding it may be manifest that great injustice has been done him at law. If it appears that by proper diligence he could have defended himself successfully, however hard his case, equity must not interfere; and this upon sound principles of general policy, which no court is at liberty to disregard.
In the recent case of Holland & wife v. Trotter, 22 Gratt. 136, relief was given upon the ground of surprise, hut upon principles, which are stated by Judge Christian who delivered the opinion of the court, entirely consistent with Tapp's adm'or v. Rankin, supra.
In this case the court is of opinion that the facts upon which the plaintiff relies to show that it would be against conscience to execute the judgment at law, might have been relied on in his defense at law; and
His counsel says he examined the docket, and saw' no case upon it of Richmond, assignee v. Wallace. He saw the case of Richmond, assignee against Black $ Co., but it never occurred to him that the appellant was sued in that case, and he did not look into the papers to see. T et he had been informed by the appellant that he was sued as a member of that firm, and that his-ground of defense was, that he was not, and never had been, a member ©f it: and he thinks he showed him a copy of the summons which had been served on him. His counsel says he did not remember to have been shown a copy of the summons, and was not aware that the appellee was interested in that suit, else he would have looked into the papers and entered a plea. But a plea denying the partnership could not have availed for his defense unless verified by affidavit; and the defendant was not there to make affidavit.
But being informed as to the character of the appellant’s defense, and knowing from the date of the sum
Decree aeeirmed.