entertain jurisdiction and grant relief after a failure at law. Talbert, &c. v. Jenny et al. 6 Rand. 159; Foushee v. Lea, 4 Call, 279. It is not the province of a court of equity to see that justice in the abstract is done in all possible cases, but only to lend its aid when, from any cause, without his own default or negligence, a party cannot have justice done him in the courts of law. Nor does the circumstance, that the discounts, or abatements, or damages, claimed to be set off in equity, arise out of a breach of the same contract on which the judgment at law is founded, form an exception to the general rule, unless there be also some circumstance in the case, which, without the default or negligence of the party, prevented him from availing himself of such a breach by way of defence, or in an action at law. Cabell's ex'r v. Robert's adm'r, 6 Rand. 580. In an action of debt, defendant pleads a special plea in bar, and the issue joined thereon is found against him, and judgment rendered for plaintiff. Then defendant exhibits bill in chancery, stating that though he was unable to prove the matter of his plea on the trial at law, he is now able to prove it, without suggesting fraud, accident, mistake or other circumstance, which prevented him from establishing his defence at law, and praying relief against the judgment: Held, the court of chancery had no jurisdiction to grant relief in such a case. Norris v. Hume, 2 Leigh, 334.

If the defendant's counsel means to move for a new trial, because the finding of the jury is contrary to evidence, he is not bound to do it at the time the verdict is rendered, but may postpone it to another day of the term; and if one of the justices who tried the cause does not attend on the day of the motion, so that a quorum cannot be had to decide on it, that will be ground for relief in a court of equity. Foushee v. Lea, 4 Call, 279.

If the parties are fairly before a court of law which can give full redress, equity has no jurisdiction of the case. Harvey v. Fox, 5 Leigh, 444. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to relieve a plaintiff against a judgment at law, where the case in equity proceeds on grounds equally available at law and in equity. The plaintiff must establish special equitable ground for relief. Harrison v. Nettleship, 2 Mylne & Keen, 423.

It is a well established principle, that a court of equity cannot interfere, in a case purely legal, merely on the ground that the judgment at law is erroneous, or on the ground that the party failed to produce the evidence which was in his power for his defence in the court of law. Bierne v. Mann et al. 5 Leigh, 364.

The general rule is, that after a verdict at law, the party comes too late with a bill of discovery, unless he shews a clear case of accident, surprise or fraud. This is the established doctrine in England and in the United States. Brown v. Swann, 10 Peters' R. 497. If he had knowledge of the facts during the pendency of the suit at law, he must apply to equity for aid, and not wait until judgment. Ibid.

Bill in equity for relief against a judg ment at law, on grounds which would have been a good defence at law, without shewing any reason why the defence was not made at law; defendants object to the jurisdiction in their answers; the court directs an issue to try the facts on which relief is asked, and verdict found for plaintiff, and then court decrees relief: Held, the case was not proper for relief in equity; and, notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff on the issue, the bill should have been dismissed. Collins et al. v. Jones, 6 Leigh, 530.

Though courts of equity and courts of law have concurrent jurisdiction in cases of fraud, yet, if a suit be first brought in a court of law, in which the question of fraud may be tried and determined, the party injured by the fraud must make his defence at law; if he neglect to do so, the court of equity has no jurisdiction to relieve him. Thus, if S. by fraud and deception practised on G., procures G. to execute a bond to H., upon which H. brings suit against G. and recovers judgment against G. by default, and G. files a bill in equity to be relieved against the judgment, on the ground of the fraud practised on him, without assigning any reason for not having defended himself at law, he will not be relieved in equity, because he might have defended himself at law, on the plea of non est factum. Haden v. Garden, 7 Leigh, 157.

In a motion by Turner v. Davis to recover money which T. alleged he had paid as D.'s surety, the court holds they were both principals, and gives T. judgment against D. for one moiety of the money paid, D. making no defence at law; then D. files a bill in equity, shewing that T. was the principal and he the surety, and states a reason for his failing to defend himself at law, which he does not prove to be true; he proves that T. was the principal and he the surety but, Held, his case is not relievable in equity. It is the settled rule of this court, that where a party has been grossly inattentive and negligent of his defence at law, he shall have no relief in equity. Pr. P. Tucker, in delivering opinion of court, Turner v. Davis et al. 7 Leigh, 227, 229; and see Morgan v. Carson, 7 Leigh, 238. The plaintiff seeks here, says

Tucker, P., to arrest a judgment at law, on a ground of defence which might have availed him in a court of law, and which he neglected to make. Such an attempt cannot receive the countenance of this court. A long train of decisions, no longer necessary to be cited or reviewed, leaves us no room for hesitation in dismissing such a case from the equitable forum. P. 241.

The jurisdiction of a court of equity, to injoin the collection of purchase money of land after conveyance executed, on the ground of a deficiency in quantity, the contract being a sale by the acre, is not now to be questioned. And equity will injoin the collection of the purchase money, on the ground of defect of title after vendee has taken possession, under conveyance from vendor with general warranty, if the title is questioned, by a suit either prosecuted or threatened, or if the purchaser can shew clearly that the title is defective. But, quary, whether equity will interfere to relieve against the collection of purchase money, on ground of defect of title in a case, in which the conveyance contains covenants of seizin, good title or the like, on which vendee may bring suit at law against vendor before actual eviction? Koger et al. v. Kane's adm'r et al. 5 Leigh, 606, and authorities cited; and Kayton's adm'x, &c. v. Brawford's ex'rs, &c. 5 Leigh, 39.

If the cause has not been fully and fairly tried and determined at law, equity will give relief. Ambler v. Wyld, 2 Wash. 36, 41; Picket v. Morris, 2 Wash. 255, 272; Hawkins v. Depriest, 4 Munf. 469; and see Armstrong et ux. v. Hickman, 6 Munf. 287-291. If the defendant is taken sick on his way to the trial of the cause, and is thereby prevented from making an affidavit that the original deeds are lost, and for want of such affidavit the court refuses to receive copies of the deeds in evidence, the court of chancery may relieve against the verdict, and judgment obtained by the plaintiff. Hord v. Dishman, 5 Call, 279; Mead v. Merritt, 2 Paige, 402; Mitchell v. Bunell, 2 Paige, 606; Ld. Portarlington v. Soulby, 3 Mylne & Keene, 104.

On general principles of equity, the superior courts of chancery have power to direct the venue to be changed after issue joined in a county or other inferior court, where it appears that strong prejudices existed against the defendant which were unknown to him until after such issue was joined, and that a fair and impartial trial could not be expected in the court where the suit was depending. Darmsdatt v. Wolfe, 4 H. & M. 246.

A court of equity has not jurisdiction to settle the bounds of land between adverse claimants, unless the plaintiff has an equity

against the defendant claiming adversely to him. An equity against other persons will not give such jurisdiction. Stewart's heirs et al. v. Coalter, 4 Rand. 74; Lange v. Jones & Adams's ex'rs, 5 Leigh, 192.

Land sold, being erroneously described in the conveyance executed by vendor, mistake corrected on bill in equity filed by vendee. Long's ex'r, &c. v. Israel et al. 9 Leigh, 556.

A., in consideration of a certain price per acre to be paid him by B., undertakes to procure C., who is in possession of a tract of land as owner thereof, to make a good deed for the same to B. with general warranty. A. purchases the land from C., pays him the purchase money, and directs him to make the conveyance to B., which is made accordingly with general warranty; B. executes to A. his notes for the price agreed upon between them and takes possession of the land, which he holds without eviction or disturbance: Held, 1. Equity will not injoin A. from collecting the money due him by B., whatever be the defects of C.'s title to the land. 2. No eviction or disturbance of B.'s possession having taken place, defect of title is no ground for his coming into equity against C. Ibid.

Vendor is not estopped by his receipt from claiming the purchase money in equity. Wilson's curator v. Shelton's adm'r, 9 Leigh, 342.

And where the subject is peculiary appropriate to the jurisdiction of a court of equity, as trust and confidence, and it was proper that the complainant should have a discovery from the defendant, the court of appeals relieved after a judgment at law, notwithstanding the complainant assigned no reason for not having defended himself at law, and though he did not aver in his bill that he needed the aid of the defendant's testimony. Spencer et al. v. Wilson, 4 Munf. 130; see West's ex'r v. Logwood, 6 Munf. 491; and Ryle v. Haggie, 1 Jacob & Walker, 234.

A general delusion on the subject of a point of law, is a good ground for relief in equity. Tomkies v. Downman, 6 Munf. 557, Brooke, J. dissent. 568-571; and see Lyon et al. v. Richmond et al. 2 Johns. Ch. R. 51, 14 Johns. R. (in error,) 501, S. C.

Although it may be manifest that great injustice has been done a defendant at law by the verdict and judgment against him there, yet, if this injustice has not been produced by any fraud or surprise on the part of the plaintiff, but is the result either of the defendant's own negligence, or of his counsel's ignorance or bad management, a court of equity can give him no relief. Tapp's adm'r v. Rankin, 9 Leigh, 478.

Every claimant who asks relief of a court

Bill in equity dismissed, because amount remaining due to complainant was uncertain, and could only be ascertained by a settlement of accounts in reference to transactions more than twenty-seven years old at the commencement of the suit. Ibid. S. C.

For the general principles of equity jurisdiction, see Carr, in delivering opinion of court in Bower et al. v. Creigh et al. 3 Rand. 26.

The true meaning of account, that will give a court of equity jurisdiction. Smith v. Marks, 2 Rand. 449; The Trustees of the Presbyterian Church v. Manson et al. 4 Rand. 197.

Where a plaintiff goes into equity for a settlement of accounts, on the ground that he cannot substantiate the items, except by the answer and testimony of the defendant himself, and in the progress of the suit it appears by his own shewing, that the account is susceptible of proof by witnesses in a court of law, his bill ought to be dismissed. Meze v. Mayse, 6 Rand. 658.

And a bill praying an account, and a decree for the balance which should be found due on a claim, on which an action at law would have lain, without shewing any obstacle which would defeat or embarrass the legal remedy, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Poage v. Willson, 2 Leigh, 490; and Fowle et al. v. Lawrason, 5 Peters's R. 495, acc'd; Moses v. Lewis, 12 Price, 502.

Bill in chancery stating running accounts for many years, between complainant and defendant, consisting of numerous items of debit and credit, or claims for them on both sides, and praying an account and decree for balance: Held, this is a bill for an account which equity will entertain, though assumpsit might have lain at law. Hickman v. Stout, 2 Leigh, 6.

Where a party comes into a court of equity to be relieved against proceedings at law, he must confess judgment at law, and rely solely on the court of equity for relief, though he may have grounds of defence at law distinct from the grounds of relief preferred to the court of equity. Warwick et ux. et al. v. Norvell, 1 Leigh, 96.

It is a settled rule, that when a court of equity gets possession of a cause for one purpose, as for discovery, &c. it may retain it generally. See Pryor v. Adams, 1 Call,

382; Chichester's ex'x v. Vass's adm'r, 1 Munf. 98, 117; Rathbone v. Warren, 10 Johns. R. 587; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. R. 294-6; Ryle v. Haggie, 1 Jacob & Walker, 234-237.

(a) One hundred dollars by former law; and under that law it was decided that if the claim be one hundred dollars or more, and it be reduced to less than one hundred dollars by set-offs offered and allowed at the trial, the court may enter judgment for the balance. See Maitland v. M'Dearman, Virg. Cas. 131. And where debt was brought by the assignee of a single bill for $100 34 cts. against the maker, the jury, allowing a credit of $20, proved to have been collected by the assignor for defendant's use, and unaccounted for, found for plaintiff $87 34 cts., the court entered judgment for that sum by the advice of general court. Ferguson, assignee, v. Highley, gen. ct. June T. 1821, 2 Virg. Cas. 255. And see Pitts v. Carpenter, 2 Stra. 1191, 1 Wils. 19, S. C.; Gross v. Fisher, 3 Wils. 48; Heaward v. Hopkins, 2 Doug. 449; Gobed v. But, 2 Chitty's Reports, 394.

But if the balance be reduced by the proof of payments, the court cannot enter judgment. Larrowe v. Harding's adm'r, gen. ct. June T. 1820, 2 Virg. Cas. 203; Gross v. Fisher, 3 Wils. 48; Cook v. Johnson, 2 Price's Eq. Rep. 19, acc'd.

Penal bill for $100, conditioned to pay $47, the court has jurisdiction. Quary, if the penalty had been increased in fraudem legis? Heath et al. v. Blaker et al. gen. ct. June T. 1820, 2 Virg. Cas. 215. See Newell v. Wood, 1 Munf. 555; The U. S. v. M'Dowell, 4 Cranch, 316; and the remarks of judges Brooke and Roane in Lewis v. Long, 3 Munf. 151, 155.

In actions sounding in damages 'tis impossible for the court to know the amount of the matter or subject in controversy, except from the declaration, and therefore they are governed by the amount declared for, and not by the verdict. See Lyons, J. in Stephens v. White, 2 Wash. 212; Horton v. Kilmore, Hardw. Cas. 6, Ridgw. R. 29, S. C.; Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 404, 407; Hancock v. Barton, 1 Serg. & Raw. 269; Kline v. Wood, 9 Serg. & Raw. 294.

Where damages for breach of contract are uncertain, and therefore unknown till ascertained by verdict, the superior court has jurisdiction, though the verdict is for less than one hundred dollars. Newsum et ux. adm'r, v. Pendred, 2 Virg. Cas. 93; Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Peters's R. 33; Scott v. Lunt's adm'r, 6 Peters, 349.