
    
      Gatlin v. Kilpatrick.
    
    This cause came up on an appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Craven, in which a motion was made to dismiss the complainant’s bill as not containing matter of equitable jurisdiction.
    The bill stated, in substance, that in February 1806, the complainant purchased from the defendant a stud horse for £150, payable the ensuing Christmas ; but that it was agreed between them, if the horse died before the end of the season, no part of the price was to be paid, which was attested by witnesses, and a note drawn expressing the same. That the defendant refused to receive this note, as the condition rendered it unnegotiable, but repeated his determination to abide by the condition, nevertheless ; on which the complainant gave an unconditional note. That the horse died a month before the end of the season, and the defendant brought suit on the note, which the complainant employed and instructed counsel to defend; that he summoned witnesses, who failed to attend, and was also absent himself through severe illness.
   Taylor, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

If the complainant could have made any defence to the suit brought on the note, it was strictly of a legal nature, which he had an opportunity of shewing upon trial. If injustice had been done to him on that occasion, his remedy was still in a Court of Law, by applying for an appeal or certiorari. The circumstance of his not having availed himself of these remedies, will not give this Court a jurisdiction, which it did not before possess. There ought to be some period to litigation ; and where could it be more properly terminated than the principle of law has already directed ? That where a man’s claims have been decided on, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, or where the opportunity was afforded him of having them decided on, he shall no longer be at liberty to harrasshis adversary. This Court cannot relieve against a verdict at law for being contrary to equity, unless the plaintiff knew the fact to be different from what, the Jury have found it, and the defendant was ignorant of it at the time of trial; as where the plaintiff sued for a debt, and the defendant after verdict discovers a receipt for the demand, 3 Atkyns 224, or where effectual cognizance cannot be taken at law, as in complicated accounts, or where a verdict is obtained by fraud ; and not where the party omitted to avail himself of his legal defence. 1 Sckoale and Lefroy 205.

On this principle alone the bill ought to be dismissed; but even if the defendant had made his defence at law the event must have been equally unfavorable to him, because he could not have been allowed to prove by parol that the contract was different from the purport of the note. It is not alleged in the bill, that the condition on which the price of the horse was to be remitted, was suppressed by fraud, or omitted through mistake. The simple charge is, that the parties both agreed not to insert the condition, in the note but trust it to the memory of witnesses.  