¶1 took time to consider; and after some days, determined that the facts disclosed in the bill have been used by way of defense at law; and if used there and rejected as insufficient, there could not be relief in equity.
¶2 Carried to the Court of Conference
¶3 NOTE. — See Taylor v. Wood, ante , 332, and the cases there referred to in the note. *316
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture THE bill stated that Byrd was the administrator of his brother, and they
his sureties in the administration bond. That he was afterwards appointed their guardian, and of course became entitled to receive
whatever he owed as administrator, which by operation of law was a payment as administrator. That the defendant had sued for the children of the intestate, on the administration bond, and recovered. The bill prayed an injunction. The answer was read, and admitted the facts above stated, but insisted that the complainants, when defendants at law, had urged the same facts by way of defense, and as they had the benefit of such defense at law, they ought not again to urge the same in equity. Source: CourtListener
