Mason v. Nelson
Opinion of the Court
concurred in the following entry :
“The court is of opinion that the case made by the bill, ánd sustained by the proofs, entitled the appellee to relief in equity. But the measure of that relief depended upon the state of facts in regard to the bond for 163 dollars 71 cents, which ought to have been ascertained by proper proceedings before final action upon the case. The appellee in his bill admits, that at the time of the institution of the action at law, that debt was justly due, and supposing that to be the subject of the suit, he designed no defence to it. Although therefore the 200 dollar bond had been paid, Nelson still owed Landon Lindsay 163 dollars 71 cents, to which Mason was equitably entitled. And unless Nelson had paid that sum to Landon Lindsay before notice of Mason’s interest *in the transaction, or unless the bond had been assigned by Lindsay to some third person without notice of Mason’s rights, he must still be liable to Mason for that amount. By the pleadings and proofs, it neither appears that the bon'd for 163 dollars 71 cents has been paid by Nelson, nor that it is not still in Lindsay’s hands. The confused and almost unintelligible deposition of Page would seem to indicate, indeed, that Lindsay had disposed of the bond; but when or how, does not appear. In this state of the case, the court is of opinion that it was erroneous to perpetuate the injunction as to the whole amount of the judgment, since, upon the pleadings as they now stand, Mason would appear to be entitled to this 163 dollars 71 cents, as Nelson states it was unpaid when suit was brought, and neither alleges subsequent
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.