Hall v. McCann

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. If it be conceded that the pleas of “res adjudicata” and limitations are bad pleas in this case, there are other grounds on which the order of the Court helow must he affirmed. . This is an application to a Court of equity to restrain the payment of a vendor’s lien audited to the appellee under a decree, upon the ground that the lien was assigned by the appellant to the appellee as collateral security, and that the debt intended thereby to be secured has been fully paid. To justify the exercise of a jurisdiction so extraordinary in its character, it was incumbent on the appellant to make out a strong prima facie case, entitling him to the relief prayed, an equity, according to some of the cases, as strong as the legal right which is sought to be controlled.

Osborne vs. Eales, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S., 125. Then again, the jurisdiction being founded on equitable principles, he must show that his own conduct has been consistent with equity, because if he has brought about the state of things of which he complains, he has no right to ask the interference of the Court. Lloyd vs. London, Chatham & Dover Railway, 2 D., F. & S., 568 ; Dutton vs. Furniss, 35 L. J. Ch., 463; Reynolds vs. Sprye, 1 D., M. & G., 679; Bateman vs. Rainsay, Sau. & Sc., 459.

Now in this case, the appellant’s ground of relief is based entirely upon the allegation that the lien was assigned to secure an indebtedness, which indebtedness has been paid. The petition is filed in the case of Cornell & Johnson vs. The Appellee, in which case the appellant was examined as a witness, and upon being asked ³⁵¹ whether he had any interest in the vendor’s lien assigned by him to McCann, or, any future contingent or prospective interest in the collection of it, lie answered unequivocally: “ I. have none and 1 know of none.” It also appears that McCann, the assignee, was at the same time examined as a