Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/425

 EMMA, BTO., 00, (LIMITED) V. EMMA, ETC., 00. OF N. T. 413 �that the court aequired no jurisJiction of his person, yet every intendment is to be made in favor of the truth of the record. It is in this case prima facie proof that process was regularly served upon the present complainant in that action. A judgment by default, where the court has aequired juris- diotion of the party defendant, is equally conclusive with a judgment upon a verdict, or after trial of the merits, in respect to the particular cause of action sued upon. Such a judgment by default admits, for the purpose of the action, the legality of the demand or claim in suit. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 356. The utmost effect, however, that can be given to this record, is that it estops the complainant from setting up any defence' to these notes which he could have availed himself of by way of answer in the action at law brought upon them ; and the question as to the suEuciency of this plea is whether, upon the case made in the bill, the complainant. may, in equity, as part of the telief that it may show itself entitled to, claim an injunction against the further enforce- ment of the claim embodied in these notes given for settlement of the claims of the Illinois Tunnel Company, or of the judg- ment recovered thereon, either because their only defence against the notes was one available in equity and not by answer in a suit at law, or because such an injunction is a proper part of the relief to which complainant would be enti- tled upon a rescission of the contract of sale. . It is insisted on the part of the complainant that the relief claimed in this bill against the collection of these notes, a» well as that prayed for against the collection of the moneys advanced to pay dividends, is only asked for as part of the relief to which complainant will be entitled in case a rescis- sion of the contract is awarded by the decree of the court ; and that these parts of the bill thus pleaded to are not and were not designed to be set forth as separate and independent causes of action. But if this claim be in fact a distinct cause of action it is no objection to the relief asked that this claim also has been included in the bill, because the bill has not been objeoted to as being multifarious. It must be assumed in considering this plea that a rescission of the sale may be ��� �