
    Wm. A. Caldwell, Administrator George Chur vs. Robert Giles, Assignee.
    Heard before Chancellor Harper, Charleston, January Term,-1836.
    The decree of the chancellor states the question made in this Case as follows :
    “ The complainant’s bill is to Obtain satisfaction of a decree, for fhe payment of $1,488.73, and interest, formerly obtained in this court, by his intestate, the said George Chur, against the defendant,Robert Giles, assignee of Thomas W. Giles'. There is no question of the fact of such decree having been obtained, or that it remains unsatisfied. But the defendant by his answer states many circumstances to show, that the original demand on which the decree was obtained, was unjust and fraudulent. These were evidently the same matters which' were urged in defence, in the former cause, and cannot be taken into consideration now.
    “ Among the rest, however, it is stated that the decree itself Was obtained by fraud, by the said George Chur’s inducing the said Thomas W. Giles, who was sworn as a witness in the canse, to swear untruly in support of his demand ; and that for this purpose, he used various artifices, and promised to share with him the amount to be recovered. There is no question, but that if a decree be obtained by fraud, it may be set aside on an original bill for that purpose. The only question is, whether the defendant can avail himself of this by his answer, so as to resist the performance oí the decree. I am of opinion that he cannot ”
    The court .accordingly refused to hear the defendant on that point, and ruled that the complainant was entitled to a decree. And the defendant appeals on the following grotiud.
    That the court ought not to give relief, by giving active efficacy to a decree, which the defendant alleges was obtained by fraud, until it has heaid the evidence ; and if the evidence supports the defence^ the court should refuse to revive 1he decree on the ground, that the; court will not lend its aid to make a fraud successful.
    HUNT, for. Appellant.
    
    ÍSunT, for motion;
    PeKONNEAU, MaZYCK & FlNLEY, COhtrñs
    Filed 13th March, 1837.
   The court concur with the chancellor, that the matters put-ift issue by the answer are precisely the same, as those recorded in the original proceeding, and cannot, therefore, avail the defendant, by the way of answer to this bill. If it can in any event avail the defendant, it can only be on a bill to set aside the decree for the fraud complained of, and that course of proceeding is the only one recognized by the precedents. Motion dismissed, and the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed;

DAVID JOHNSON)

J. JOIINoTQN,

WILLIAM HARPER;  