Brazelton v. Brooks
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM FRANKLIN. This cause was heard at the February Term, 1858, before Chancellor Ridley, who dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed. said: Brooks insists that the decree of the Chancellor should be affirmed— 1. Because there is no evidence whatever sustaining the allegations of fraud; and, that in the absence of this, the Chancery Court had no jurisdiction, and complainant’s bill must be dismissed. 2. The indebtedness on the part of Brooks to Brazelton, if any…
Read the full summary
FROM FRANKLIN. This cause was heard at the February Term, 1858, before Chancellor Ridley, who dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed. said: Brooks insists that the decree of the Chancellor should be affirmed— 1. Because there is no evidence whatever sustaining the allegations of fraud; and, that in the absence of this, the Chancery Court had no jurisdiction, and complainant’s bill must be dismissed. 2. The indebtedness on the part of Brooks to Brazelton, if any existed, was a defence of which complainant could have availed himself in the suit at law under his plea of payment; and there…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
On the 20th of November, 1848, complainant, as the endorser of a note made hy Brooks, paid for him to Robert and John Edwards, the sum of $381.22; and on that day become his creditor for that amount. Brooks, in 1853, in the month of March or April, had obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court at Winchester, against complainant, for about $400.00.
The complainant, on the 8th of April, 1853, filed his bill in the Chancery Court at Winchester, to set-off the amount that Brooks owed him against the judgment, and alleged that Brooks was insolvent, and if allowed to collect his judgment against…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Byrd v. StuartTennessee Supreme Court · 1969