Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Tenn. 478

Bell v. Dewoody

Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity · decided 1809-09-06

<p> In Equity, in consequence of a bond that was lost. </p>

Relies on McLeod v. Ellis

Decided 1809-09-06

Per Curiam.

¶1 It is true, that suits at law may be maintained in a case situated like the present. But the court of equity having previously jurisdiction of cases of this nature, their jurisdiction is not taken away by the courts of law having taken cogizance. The jurisdiction of the two courts are *479 now concurrent. * In matters of account, if the legality of a debit or credit be disputed, it is the practice for the court to settle the point of law, and the clerk and master is to make the calculation of the amount and balance.

*

¶2 See 3 Bro. C. C. 218. Cox vs. Strode, Ct. Appeals, Kentucky, Fall, 1810. 2 Wash. 121. 2 Caine’s C. E. 37. 1 Atk. 128. Newl. 492.

/1/tenn/478 · .json · Public domain