Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/871

 APGAR V. OHmSTOPHBBS. 859 �The piayer of the bill is that the defendant, Thomas V. J, Christo- pliers, may be enjoined and restrained by decree (1) from prosecuting the said ejectment suit for the recovery of the complainant's said lands; (2) that the said deed, dated Octoher 10, 1854, may be re- formed to effectuate the intention of the parties thereto as therein expressed ; (3) that the defendant be compelled to release to the com- plainant whatever apparent legal interest he may have in said lands, which he claims through either the said Thomas Vermilya or the said Mary Ann Jarvis ; and (4) that he may have such other relief as the nature of the case may require. �The foregoing statement of the allegations and prayer of the bill reveals that the complainant has in view some relief in equity, which the court of law is not adequate to give. If it were simply a bill to restrain the suit at law, it would be necessary for the complainant not only to set out some ground of eonitable relief, but to admit that he had no defence at law. No such admission is made in this case, because the bill contemplates something more than an injunction. It waives the question of estoppel, which is a legal as well as equita- ble defence, and asks the court of equity to look upon the deed of Octoher 10, 1834, from Thomas Vermilya to Mary Ann Jarvis, as an executory agreement, which is a mere equitable defence, and to de- cree that the defendant, Thomas V. J. Christophers, shall carry out the manifest intention of the parties, as appears upon the face of the conveyance, �It is, therefore, a question of proceeding, and in all such questions it is the duty of the court to direct the course which will tend to diminish useless litigation. If the ejectment suit should go on and the plaintifif should succeed at law, the alleged equitable ground for relief would still remain, and must be met by the defendant. It seems better for all parties to meet it at once, in a suit where all defences can be considered, and where, in a single proceeding, the whole con- troversy, in all its aspects, may be settled. �This was the view taken by the learned chancellor of New Jersey, in the recent case of Hannon v. Christophers, after an able opinion of Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, (see 7 Stew. 459,) and its prorpiety was clearly admitted in the opinion of the lord justices of the court of appeal in chancery, in the case of Crofts v. Middleton, 8 De G-., M. & G. 192, in which it was held that where there was an equitable title in a defendant to an action of ejectment, the court of chancery, at his suit, would restrain the proceodings in the action, althougb there might be a question whether he would not be successful at law. ��� �