{
  "id": 2102588,
  "name": "ASHLY G. POWELL ADM'R, &c. vs. WILLIAM H. WATSON, ADM'R, &c.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powell v. Watson",
  "decision_date": "1849-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "94",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "6 Ired. Eq. 94"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 N.C. 94"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Ired. Eq. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired. Eq.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ired. Eq. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired. Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        2097042
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/36/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ired. Eq. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired. Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        2098167
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/38/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Haw. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Haw.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Bur. 1009",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bur.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ired. Eq. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired. Eq.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 5166,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1816979443189982e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5887692680152395
    },
    "sha256": "c988d8ad4cd2270f1d79088b6ce9f3975bcedbe62e0fe317ea4277f237390ee5",
    "simhash": "1:a1afe434bbc242bb",
    "word_count": 955
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:52.195328+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ASHLY G. POWELL ADM\u2019R, &c. vs. WILLIAM H. WATSON, ADM\u2019R, &c."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J.\nWe do not exactly see, what it is the plaintiff wishes us to do for him, or in what manner he desires to be relieved. If it is, that we shall grant him a decree for so much money wrongfully paid by him under the judgment at law, we cannot grant his request. It is calling upon the Court to give him a decree against the defendants for a legal demand, unascertained by a judgment at law. If the plaintiff have a legal claim he must establish it at law, before he can ask the aid of this Court. Brown v. Long, 1 Ire. Eq. 190. But he has no claim at law. The money paid by him was paid under the judgment of a Court of Justice \u2014 under compulsion of law_\nan action for money had and received, which is an equitable action, will not lie to recover it back, however unconscientiously retained by the defendant. The contrary was at one time ruled by Lord Mansfield in Moses v. McFarland, 2 Bur. 1009, but that case has been repeatedly overruled. Marriott v. Haughton, 7 Term Rep. 268, 2 East. 469. 5 Fawn. 143. In the first case. Lord Kenyon would not grant a rule to show cause, lest it should imply a doubt as to the plaintiff\u2019s right to recover \u2014 observing \u201cafter a recovery by process of law, there must foe an end of litigation \u2014 otherwise, there would be no security for any one \u201d There the defendant bad brought an action for goods sold, and for which the plaintiff had paid him and taken his receipt, but the receipt was, at the time of the trial, mislaid, and the plaintiff, not being able otherwise to prove the payment, judgment was given against him, which be paid. Afterwards the receipt was found and the application made for a rule t&shaw cause. Neither will a Court of Equity interfere, and fear the same reason. In the case of Pegram v. King, 2 Haw. 610, which was a bill to set aside a verdict at law, obtained by fraud and perjury, Chief Justice Taylor, in delivering the opinion of the Court, observes, that the power of the Court of Equity to grant new trials \u201cis never extended to any case, where the party applying has been guilty of any Haches and might have made use of the evidence at law.\u2019* The language of the Court in Wilson v. Leigh, 4 Ired. Eq. 100, speaking of the trial at law, the verdict in which was sought to be set aside on the ground of subsequently discovered testimonjr, is, \u201cthe question being legal, the tribunal legal, and the trial regular, the result must be She conclusion on the one party as well as on the other, unless there was fraud practised by one \u00a9f them on the trial, so as to prevent its being a fair trial.* To the same effect is the ease of Martin v. Harding. 3 Ired. Eq. 603. In each of these eases there was a demurrer, which was sustained, and the bills dismissed. No fraud is alleged in this case. The plaintiff does not ask a new trial at law, but a decree for the money over paid, and the same prin* ciple applies \u2014 it is in substance the same redress.\nThe decree in the Court below, overruling the demurrer, is erroneous, and must be reversed, and the bill dismissed with costs in this Court.\nPer Curiam.\nDecree accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Miller and Husled, for the plaintiff.",
      "W. H. Haywood and Busbee, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ASHLY G. POWELL ADM\u2019R, &c. vs. WILLIAM H. WATSON, ADM\u2019R, &c.\nWhere there has been a judgment at law, a Court of Equity, except in a ease of fraud, will not interfere in behalf of either party, upon the ground of testimony being discovered since the trial, which was unknown to the party at the time of the trial and which would have materially varied the result.\nThe cases of Brown v. Long, 1 Ired. Eq. 190, Pegram v. King, 2 Hawk. 610, Wilson v. Leigh, 4 Ired. Eq. 100, and Martin v. Harding, 3 Ire. Eq. 603 cited and approved.\nAppeal from an interlocutory order made at the Spring Term 1849 of Johnston Court of Equity, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.\nThe plaintiff is the administrator of John B. Turner, who had been the administrator of Thomas Rice, deceased. The defendant Watson is the administrator de bonis non of Thomas Rice, and the other defendants, his heirs. The defendant Watson sued the plaintiff, Powell, as such administrator, and recovered a judgment against him. The bill alleges, that, on the trial at law, a reference was made to a commissioner to take an account of the assets of Turner in the hands of the present plaintiff, as his administrator, who made his report, and which was confirmed, and from which it appeared, that the plaintiff had in his hands assets to the amount of $415 61: for which there was a verdict and judgment, which he has paid. The bill then alleges, that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, before his death, had deposited with one Hobbes, who lived about six miles from him, a bundle of vouchers, showing payments made by him to a large amount, and which were not taken into consideration on the trial of the suit at law; and that, at that time, he, the plaintiff, had no knowledge of their existence, and therefore they were not 1 aid before the commissioner. The bill prays, that the defendants may be decreed to pay him \u201cso much of said sums, as he, the defendant Watson, may have assets iu his hands,\u201d &c.\nThe defendants demurred generally.\nMiller and Husled, for the plaintiff.\nW. H. Haywood and Busbee, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0094-01",
  "first_page_order": 100,
  "last_page_order": 103
}