Difference between revisions of ".MjkwNzU.MTAyNDI3"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Replaced content with "e")
Line 1: Line 1:
was awarded, his memory does not enable him now to say, nor can it be material. It it time your respondent applies for and obtained an appeal from the chancery decree [illegible], which constituted the alleged equity of the complainant's bill of injunction, and it is true he afterwards answered said bill, and your honor dissolved the injunction, not for want of more allegations, but because the only equity which had even existed in the decree [illegible], has be superseded by the appellate court; leaving no ground of equity in the bill. It is also true your respondent [illegible] out [illegible], after the [illegible] of said injunction, for the balance of his judgement at law [illegible]; the decree of the chancery court, as he is advised, became a [illegible] after the appeal, and upon that ground, and that only, [illegible] your honor have dissolved the injunction. Your respondent denies that he owes the complainant a [illegible], going out of the chancery suit [illegible], but on the contrary he insists that the complainant and is his [illegible], in the partnership transactions, which are the subject of that suit, and he will hopes to recover the sum reported in his favor, in the above [illegible] mentioned statement of the commissioner [illegible] your honor doubtless decreed as you thought just right, the court of appeals may think otherwise; at all events, they have now to try the case. Juries often find verdicts, and the judge sets them aside, and awards new trials; the finding of the jury is no evidence of [illegible] and so in this case, the appellate court has awarded a new trial to be had before them, the decree below cannot be recognized as determining any verdict. [illegible] Now is there any hardship, as changed in the bill, the worthless slave aforesaid, died in the possession of the complainant, his own [illegible] property. Your respondent admits the judgement, & shall it was founded upon the award of [Name] Davis & [Name], the judgement on the award was never delayed by your respondent's [illegible], but bu the contrivance of the complainant. It was not the expectation of your respondent, that the complainant could recover of him the chancery suit, but on the contrary he (the respondent) fully expected to recover , and [illegible] expects so to do, or her certainty never should have bought that suit, or taken an appeal. It is true, that after the decree, the counsel of the complainant offered to appeal his decree against the judgement at law, which was declined, because your respondent believed he had been injured by the decree, and wished to have it tested by the court of appeals. The complainant, as above said, might rightfully have taken his [illegible] upon your respondent, [illegible] to the [illegible] court, to show cause wherefore the one might not be set off against the other, and in

Revision as of 01:14, 19 September 2020