law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will justify an application to a court of chancery. On the other hand, it may with equal safety be laid down as a general rule that a defense cannot be set up in equity which has been fully and fairly tried at law, although it may be the opinion of that court that the defense ought to have been sustained at law. In the case under consideration the plaintiffs ask the aid of this court to relieve them from a judgment, on account of a defense, which, if good anywhere, was good at law, and which they were not prevented, by the act of the defendants, or by any pure and unmixed accident, from making at law."

This was held to be the law prevailing in the District of Columbia, not by reason of any local peculiarity, but because it was a general principle of equity jurisprudence. It was repeated in Hendrickson v. Hinckley, 17 How. 443, where the rule was condensed by Mr. Justice CURTIS into the following statement:

"A court of equity does not interfere with judgments at law, unless the complainant has an equitable defense, of which he could not avail himself at law, because it did not amount to a legal defense, or had a good defense at law, which he was prevented from availing himself of by fraud or accident, unmixed with negligence of himself or his agents."

Creath v. Sims, 5 How. 192; Walker v. Robbins, 14 How. 584. It was reaffirmed in Crim v. Handley, 94 U. S. 652, and in Brown v. Co. of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157.

This is the doctrine recognized and applied by the supreme court of errors of Connecticut in the case of Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 544. That was a bill in equity to restrain the collection of a judgment recovered in New York, upon the ground that the complainant had a good defense at law to the action, which he was prevented from making by the fraud of the defendant. It was there said by that court:

"It is well settled that this jurisdiction will be exercised, whenever a party, having a good defense to an action at law, has had no opportunity to make it, or has been prevented by the fraud or improper management of the other party from making it, and by reason thereof a judgment has been obtained which it is against conscience to enforce."

Then stating that the action was founded on an alleged contract, on which the complainant was not personally liable, having been made by him as agent for a corporation, and that this was known to the party suing, the court continue:

"If this was all, the plaintiff would have no remedy, however unjust it might be to compel him to pay that judgment. Still, as he was duly served

with process in that suit, it was his duty to make defense in it; and an injunction ought not to be granted to relieve him from the consequences of his own neglect."

The court then proceeds to show that he not only had a good de. fense, but that it was his intention to make it, which he would have done had he not been led by the assurances of the attorney for the plaintiff in the action to believe that it had been abandoned, so that its subsequent prosecution, without further notice, operated as a surprise, tantamount to a fraud; and that, consequently, there was no ground on which to impute laches to the complainant in not defending himself at law.

A subsequent action was brought in New York upon the same judgment by an assignee of the plaintiff, to which the defendant set up as a bar the Connecticut decree perpetually enjoining its execution, which, by the judgment of the court of appeals of New York, was sustained. Dobson v. Pearce, 12 N. Y. 156. The court said, (page 167:)

"The decree of the court of chancery of the state of Connecticut, as an operative decree, so far as it enjoined and restrained the parties, had and has no extraterritorial efficacy, as an injunction does not affect the courts of this state; but the judgment of the court upon the matters litigated is conclusive upon the parties everywhere, and in every forum where the same matters are drawn in question. It is not the particular relief which was granted which affects the parties litigating in the courts of this state; but it is the adjudication and determination of the facts by that court-the final decision that the judgment was procured by fraud-which is operative here, and necessarily prevents the plaintiff from asserting any claim under it."

The same rule, as to the jurisdiction in equity to enjoin the enforcement of judgments at law, was declared by the supreme court of errors of Connecticut in the case of Carrington v. Holabird, 17 Conn. 530, in these words:

“This jurisdiction will be exercised where to enforce a judgment recovered is against conscience, and where the applicant had no opportunity to make defense, or was prevented by accident, or the fraud or improper management of the opposite party, and without fault on his own part."

To the same effect is the case of Borland v. Thornton, 12 Cal. 440, where the subject is discussed and the authorities cited.

These, then, are the principles which should have governed the supreme court of errors of Connecticut in the proceedings and judgment now under review. It remains to ascertain whether they were in fact applied in its dealing with the judgment sought to be enforced by the

plaintiff in error. No question is made of the right of that court to entertain the jurisdiction to enjoin proceedings upon the judgment, notwithstanding it was the judgment of a court of the United States. It had jurisdiction of the person of the plaintiff in error, who was himself seeking the aid of the courts of that state in his suit at law upon the judgment for the purpose of enforcing it. Nor is any inquiry opened, upon this writ of error, as to any matter of fact found in the record before us. The facts, as ascertained and acted upon by the state court, are assumed to be true. They are contained in the report of the committee appointed to hear the evidence and report his conclusions of fact, which were accepted by the court, and they are not the subject of any exception.

The supreme court of errors of Connecticut state the grounds of their judgment in the report of the case, (Stanton*v. Embry, 46 Conn. 595,) and hold that upon its circumstances it comes within the rule laid down in Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 544, already noticed. The conduct of the plaintiff in error, alleged as the ground for granting the relief decreed, is that he "unintentionally gave them [the complainants] every reason for thinking that he did not believe that he had any right to ask for a judgment for a larger sum, and, of course, that he would not; he unintentionally led them to believe, and act upon the belief, that the only loss which could possibly ensue from either a partial or a total omission of preparation for trial would be the sum of $2,296.25." The solitary fact upon which these inferences rest is that the plaintiff in error originally presented an account for payment, claiming that sum as a commission at the rate of 5 per cent. upon the amount collected, and the complainants refusing to pay any part of it, on the ground of defenses which applied to the whole of it, brought his first suit in Connecticut against them, and in his declaration joined a special count on an agreement for this rate of compensation, with a general count upon a quantum meruit. The declaration in the action, in which judgment was rendered by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, contained two similar counts. It is argued from this that the claim for $10,000 damages, appropriate to the quantum meruit count, could only have been regarded as a form of pleading, not calculated to remove from the minds of the defendants sued "the effect produced by the precise and explicit statement of the bill of particulars;" which, regarding as obtained presumptively from the papers of the decedent, they had a right to treat as "equivalent to a declaration that those papers furnished positive evidence that there was a contract calling

for payment at that rate;" that the plaintiff in error by "no act or word gave any intimation that he considered himself entitled to or intended to claim more;" and that all this was "calculated to and did in fact produce the belief on their part that no more would in any event be asked of the court than to assess the damages according to the terms of the contract."

It is admitted, however, that the plaintiff in error did not know of the alleged special contract; that he did not intend to give to the defendants in error any assurances on the subject and that he did not know that they were relying upon what they now allege has misled them.

In all this there is certainly no fraud; in fact, there is not enough to suggest a fault on the part of the plaintiff in error. He presented an account, which, it is now confessed, for them, if not by them, that the defendants in error ought at the time to have paid. This they refused to do, denying all liability for any amount, on the ground that no legal claim could arise for services, such as were rendered, no matter how valuable they had been. Suit was then brought upon the claim, both upon an express and an implied contract. It was contested at every point. The parties were adversaries, and there is no ground whatever for any claim on the part of the defendants in error that they were relying upon assurances of any character upon the part of Embry. If they took anything for granted, it was upon their own responsibility and at their own risk. They neither expected nor feared a recovery against them for any excess beyond the contract rate, because they were confident they would defeat it altogether. Embry was an administrator. He had sought to obtain payment without litigation, and failed. It was his duty to sue for and recover whatever the law would give him. He owed no duty to his adversaries, except the opportunity of defense. That they have enjoyed, if not improved; and if it has not been as available as it would have been in case they had limited themselves, as they claim their opponent should have done, to the special contract, which they now insist was binding upon both him and them, it was, as found in this record, in part at least, "because their counsel had undue confidence in legal defenses against the entire demand, and therefore did not apprehend the full importance to the interests of his clients of being prepared with proof of the special agreement." That agree. ment they sought to avoid, on the ground that it was illegal and im moral to contract for any compensation for the services rendered; and having deliberately staked their case upon that single issue, they

seek to impute to their adversaries the responsibility of their own mistake.

The laches of the defendants in error is equally manifest. One of them was absent from the trial; the report of the committee states that "his attendance might have been secured by reasonable diligence, if such attendance had been deemed very important." The other was in Washington, but too ill to attend the trial. His counsel asked a postponement on that account, but, as the report continues, "no affidavit was offered in support of the motion, and it was denied. The petitioners' counsel appears to have been content to proceed with the trial in the absence of his clients. He had full and, as it turned out, undue confidence in the legal defenses which appeared by the record to have been set up at the trial, and took it for granted that in no event could more be recovered than $2,296.29." There were two letters from Mr. Atkinson to the defendants in error in their possession, and not known to the plaintiff in error, expressly referring to the special agreement as fixing the rate of compensation, which might have been produced on the trial, but were not. They had escaped the recollection of the active partner, Stanton, who, for the preparation of the defense, had placed in the hands of his counsel in Washington all the papers which he supposed related to the subject of the suit. The letters referred to were not found by him until after the trial and disposition of the case in the supreme court of the District of Columbia. It is entirely clear from this statement that the defendants in error are chargeable with carelessness. and want of diligence in not making and sustaining the defense on the ground of an express agreement for a fixed rate of compensation. It is fully accounted for by the other facts in the case. The report of the committee states that they were "not alive to the importance of being prepared at the trial in Washington with the proof of the special agreement which the letters furnished;" and for the reason that they took it for granted, without sufficient grounds, as we have already seen, that no recovery could be had for a larger amount, and this was based chiefly on their overweening confidence in their ability to defeat the recovery altogether.

But this is not all. The question whether there was not a special agreement limiting the compensation, as appears by the record in the case, was left to the jury upon evidence submitted. It was one of the points of the issue, and was so regarded by both parties. The counsel for the defendants in error asked an instruction to the jury on the subject, and the court did instruct the jury in reference to it.