
    Nicholson vs. Patterson.
    1. A court of chancery has power to enjoin a void judgment, but not an erroneous judgment.
    2. Where a party failed to bring to the attention of the court errors in the proceedings of an infei ¡or court of law, and by oversight the judgment was erroneously affirmed in the Supreme Court, it is held that a court of chancery had no power to enjoin the judgment.
    Patterson sued Napier in 1039, and Napier was arrested. Nicholson become his bail; judgment was obtained against Napier in the circuit court of Davidson county; a ca. sa. issued against Napier, and was returned not found; no. scire facias was issued against Nicholson, returnable to the next succeeding term, as required by the provisions of the act of 1825, ch. 33, but after the lapse of a term, the scire facias was issued and executed on Nicholson. A judgment by default was taken against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed.
    Nicholson filed his bill in the chancery court at Franklin, setting forth the above facts, and asserting that at the time said scire facias issued, he was discharged by the lapse of time and neglect' of Patterson to prosecute sci. fa. in due time, and that said sci. fa., and all the proceedings thereupon were absolutely void for want of jurisdiction in the court to render judgment thereupon.
    The case came on for hearing before chancellor Cahal, on bill, answer and proof, at the March term, 1844. He granted a perpetual injunction against the judgment, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Houston, for complainant.
    1. The judgment against Nicholson is.void, because the court had no jurisdiction. — Act of 1825, ch. 33, sec. 1, Car. .& N. page — ; 10 Law Lib.; 3 Yer. 360-6; Cooke’s Rep. 287-365; 2 Wheat. 119; 6 Yer. 311, 510; 7 Yer. 365; 5 Yer. 313; 3 Humph. 419; 2 Hawk’s Rep. 179; 6 Yer. 26.
    2. If the judgment is void, a court of equity will enjoin it, &c. — 3 Yer. 366; 10 Yer. 310.
    3. The record shows that Nicholson had a good defence at law, but by mistake or oversight of his counsel in the Supreme Court, and by oversight of said court, that defence was not made for him; and even if the judgment in the case is not therefore void, still the courts of chancery in Tennessee will grant relief. — 4 Hayw. Rep. 7.
    
      Trimble, for defendant.
    Chancery will not relieve against a judgment at law, unless the defendant was ignorant of the facts in question pending the suit, or his defence could not be received at law. See Lansing vs. Eddy, 1 Johns. R. 49.
    The decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, being res judicata, is conclusive and binding on all other courts of concurrent jurisdiction. — 1 Johns. 91.
    A decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the point at issue before it, can only be reviewed in the regular course of appeal. — 1 Johns. 543.
    Though a judgment at law may be impeached in this court for fraud, yet this court will never interfere with a judgment at law on the ground of irregularity; but the record of the judgment, &c., is a conclusive bar in equity. It belongs- to a court of law, exclusively, to inquire into the regularity of its judgment — 3 Johns. 2Í5.
    After a trial at law, a party cannot have the aid of this court,_ unless he can. impeach the justice of the judgment, on grounds of which he' could not have availed himself before, or was prévented from doing it by fraud or accident or by the act of the opposite- party, without' any negligence or fraud on his. part. — .3 Johns. 351.
    This court will hot relieve against a judgment at law, on the ground of- its being contrary to equity, unless the defendant was ignorant of-the fact pending the suit, or it could not be received as a defence alt law, or unless, without neglect, he was prevented by fraud or accident, or the act of the opposite party, from availing himself of the defence. — Foster vs. Wood, 6 Johns. 90.
    After, a cause has'been argued at law, and determined in the Supreme Court and a judgment rendered, and a subse-■quént application to that court to have - the cause re-argued has been refused, chancery will -not interfere. — 7 Johns. 285.
    
      Fogg, for complainant.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill to enjoin the collection of a judgment at law rendered by the Supreme Court of the State, in affirmance of a judgment of the circuit court of Davidson county, in favor of the defendant against Nicholson, one of the complainants.

' Nicholson became appearance -bail for one Napier, who was in custody at the suit of Patterson, the defendant in the present case. Judgment having been rendered against said Napier, a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum was issued thereon in due time, for the purpose of enforcing a satisfaction thereof, which was returned “non est inventus.” Thereupon a scire facias was issued against Nicholson, the appearance bail, to charge him with the. debt, but this scire facias was not issued within the time prescribed by the act of 1825 chap. 33, to wit, from the term of the court to which the ca. sa. was returnable, until a subsequent term, When the scire facias was returned, Nicholson neglected to enter his defence; in consequence of which, á judgment by default was • .rendered against him for the amount of the original judgment against Napier, with cost and interest. To reverse which, a writ .of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, where' the case was heard and determined upon the facts assigned for error in the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff in error against him. But it so happened, that the attention of the court was not drawn by argument to the only defect in the proceeding, to wit, that the scire facias had not been issued in proper time, and which appeared upon the face of the scire facias,, and for which the judgment would and should have been-reversed; and it also happened, that this defect also escaped the attention of the court in the examination of the record; and the judgment was consequently affirmed. That this judgment ought not to have been rendered, is incontrovertible; but the question is, can a court of chancery, upon any recognized principle, enjoin the samel We are constrained, much against our wishes, to say it cannot. The judgment is not void but erroneous; it was given, by a court having full and competent jurisdiction to hear and determine the same, and the defect in the scire facias was a legal defect, for which the judgment of the circuit court should have been reversed. In not doing this, an error in law was committed; but in as much as all judgments in the Supreme Court are final, and, after the. adjournment of the court, beyond the control of the court, there is no power of the State to correct them. A court of chancery has power to enjoin a void judgment, but not an erroneous one; and this case does not fall within that class of cases, in which relief is given in chancery, because a party in a suit at law has been prevented by mistake, accident, or the fraud of the opposite party, from making his defence at law.' We are therefore constrained, as much as we regret it, -to reversa the decree of the chancellor and dismiss the bill. It is not; to be expected that the court can in all cases detect defects, imperfections, or omissions, to which its attention is hot drawn in argument. To suppose otherwise, would be to hold that a court consisted of men of such accuracy of scrutiny as never to overlook any thing in the vast number of voluminous records submitted to their inspection; a thing that never did and never will exist. Decree reversed and bill dismissed.  