I believe the damages in this verdict to be *569 excessive ; and certainly a court of equity may, upon a bill filed for the purpose, order a new tidal at law, and in case of insolvency of one circumstanced as Green is, may order the execution to be suspended until the untried cause shall be finished. But in ordering a new trial at law, it should appear that some untoward circumstance prevented an application for one to the court who heard the cause ; or some invincible obstruction that rendered the application ineffectual, though in justice it ought to have succeeded. The counsel for Barry offers to depose that the notes of the evidence at the trial could not be collected to be presented to the court on the motion for a new trial; and therefore it could not be made effectually. The answer says that the judge’s notes were full and complete. A new trial may be granted for excessive damages, where they are enormous. The circumstances here show that a much smaller sum would have been sufficient. But I concur in the remark made by Judge RoaNE, that we are a court of appellate jurisdiction, and this is an application for a second injunction, upon a bill filed in the Circuit Court; we have no power over the cause in its present state, nor until it comes into this court by appeal. Were we to act now, we might by and by be called upon to examine our own acts with a view to the reversal of them, which nothing could be more incongruous. Motion for a second injunction refused.

See Boyers v. Pratt, 1 Hum. 90; Bridges v. Vick, 2 Hum. 515; Thompson v. French, 10 Yer. 459; Martin v. England, 5 Yer. 313; Theavenought v. Hardeman, 4 Yer. 565; Branch v. Bass, 5 Sneed, 366; Fowlkes v. Webber, 8 Hum. 530; Campbell v. Hancock, 7 Hum. 75; Crabb v. Nashville Bank, 6 Yer. 332; Dixon v. Caruthers, 9 Yer. 30; McKinley v. Beasley, 5 Sneed. 170; King’s Digest, 2380, 2427, 9392, 9450-54.